THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL by HERMAN GLENN BALLARD

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering of The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Civil Engineering Faculty of Engineering The University of Birmingham May 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and companies contributed to this research. To name a few:
q

David Seymour, my thesis advisor Anne Seymour, for giving me a home in Birmingham David Hoare and Peter Deasley, thesis examiners Greg Howell, business partner and co-thinker Lauri Koskela, for his example and inspiration Todd Zabelle and the Pacific Contracting team for their willingness to try new ideas Leo Linbeck III, Ed Beck and Kathy Jones of Linbeck Construction for sharing opportunity and data (3 of the 5 cases were Linbeck projects) Norm Barnes and the Barnes Construction team for access to projects Iris Tommelein, external thesis advisor and colleague at UC Berkeley Jeanne Ballard, my wife, for putting up with me, especially my absences from home

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

ABSTRACT

Project controls have traditionally been focused on after-the-fact detection of variances. This thesis proposes a control system, the Last Planner system, that causes the realization of plans, and thus supplements project management's concern for management of contracts with the management of production. The Last Planner system has previously been successively applied by firms with direct responsibility for production management; e.g., speciality contractors. This thesis extends system application to those coordinating specialists, both in design and construction, through a series of case studies, one of which also explores the limits on unilateral implementation by specialists. In addition to the extended application, two questions drive this research. The first question is 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level? Previous research revealed substantial improvement in productivity for those who improved plan reliability to the 70% level, consequently there is reason to hope for further improvement, possibly in all performance dimensions, especially with application across an entire project rather than limited to individual speciality firms. That question is explored in three case studies, the last of which achieves the 90% target. The second research question is 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes1? That question is explored in an extensive case study, which significantly contributes to understanding the design process from the perspective of active control, but unfortunately does not fully answer the question, primarily because the project was aborted prior to start of construction. However, it is argued that the Last Planner system is especially appropriate for design production control because of the value-generating nature of design, which renders ineffective traditional techniques such as detailed front end planning and control through after-the-fact detection of variances.

1

In this thesis, the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering activities, not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.

Issues for future research are proposed. including root cause analysis of plan failures and quantification of the benefits of increased plan reliability for both design and construction processes. .

3 Previous Application of Production Control Concepts to the AEC Industry 2-12 2.0 Introduction 1.5 Structure of the Dissertation 1-1 1-1 1-3 1-5 1-8 2.2.0 Description and History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3.1 What is Production Control? 2-1 2.4 The Last Planner System As a Whole 3.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3.TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Page Acknowledgements Abstract Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables 1.2 Project Management 2-5 2.1 Constraints Analysis 3.2 The Meaning of “Control” 2-3 2.1.3.1 The Project Management Body of Knowledge 2-5 2.0 Critique of Production Control 2-1 2.1 Conceptual Framework 1.3 Matching Load and Capacity 3.4 Criteria for a Production Control System 2-15 3.1.3.2.2 Assumptions 1.2 Koskela 2-14 2.1 Melles and Wamelink 2-12 2.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-5 3-9 3-11 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-21 .3 Contribution to Knowledge 1.2 Critique of the Traditional Project Control Model 2-7 2.3 Production Unit Control 3.4.2 Should-Can-Will-Did 3.4.4 Work Flow Control 3.4 The Author's Role in the Research 1-5 1.1 Hierarchical Structure 3.2 Pulling 3.4.1 The Meaning of “Production” 2-1 2.4.

0 Case One: CCSR Project 5.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process Control 6.3.2 PPC and Reasons 8.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 6.2 Research Design 4.3 Feedback from participants 6.3 Observations 8.3 Case Studies 5.4 Learnings 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-4 4-6 4-6 4-8 4-9 4-9 4-10 4-12 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-10 5-11 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-5 6-5 6-8 6-10 6-12 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-7 7-8 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-4 8-5 .1 Introduction 4.5 Learnings 7.4 Learnings 6.3.0 Case Two: Next Stage 6.2.1 Research Question 4.3 Observations 7.3.2 PPC and Reasons 7.0 Case Three: Pacific Contracting 7.2.1 Engineering Management as a Field of Study 4.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 7.2 PPC and Reasons 5.3.4 Learnings 8.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control Systems 3-24 3.1.8 Research Questions: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and 3-25 improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan Complete? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes? 4.2.3 Observations 5.1 PPC and Reasons 6.1.2 Research Strategies 4.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 8.2 Observations 6.2 Data 6.0 Case Four: Old Chemistry Building Renovation 8.3 Research Methods 4.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation 4.2 Competing Engineering Management Paradigms 4.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation 6.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 5.2.2.0 Research Methodology 4.1 Data Collection 4.

5 Learnings 10.0 Conclusions 10.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 9.1 Summary of Case Study Results 10.2 PPC and Reasons 9.5 Conclusions Glossary of Terms List of References Bibliography Appendix A: Next Stage Kickoff Meeting Appendix B: Next StageTeleconferences Appendix C: Next Stage Action Items Log Appendix D: Next Stage Issues Log Appendix E: Next Stage Decisions Log 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-3 9-6 9-6 10-1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-9 G-1 R-1 Biblio-1 A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 .3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes? 10.4 Directions for Future Research 10.3 Constraint Analysis and Make Ready 9.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan Complete? 10.0 Case Five: Zeneca 9.4 Observations 9.9.

LIST OF FIGURES Page 3.1 The formation of assignments in the Last Planner System 3.3 CCSR-PPC without rain 6.1 Next Stage-PPC 7.4 A Traditional (Push) Planning System 3.7 PPC (Nokia Project) 3.8 Participant Survey (Nokia Project) 5.4 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resources 10.3 Make Ready by Screening and Pulling 3.2 Pacific Contracting-Reasons 8.1 CCSR-Weekly PPC 5.2 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives 10.5 Last Planner-A Pull System 3.5 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process 3-2 3-6 3-11 3-13 3-14 3-16 3-23 3-23 5-5 5-6 5-6 6-4 7-2 7-7 8-3 8-4 9-2 9-2 10-4 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 .6 The Last Planner System 3.2 Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions 9.2 Zeneca-Reasons 10.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC 8.1 Activity Definition Model 10.1 Zeneca-PPC 9.2 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion 5.2 Lookahead Process 3.3 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites 10.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC 7.

4 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized) 6.2 Construction Lookahead Schedule 3.1 Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion 6.2 Next Stage-PPC Data 6.1 CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle 5.2 CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form 5.3 Engineering Lookahead Schedule 3.4 Constraints Analysis 5.LIST OF TABLES Page 1.3 Next Stage-Reasons 7.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons 8.3 CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data 5.1 Functions of the Lookahead Process 3.1 Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form 1-1 3-7 3-9 3-10 3-12 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-7 6-2 6-3 6-5 7-3 8-3 9-5 .1 Conversion/Flow/Value 3.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data 9.

1997). which release work: composed of conversion. inspection.CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. critical path method. Taking care that customer requirements are met in the best possible manner. quality and release of work. rapid reduction of uncertainty. Conversion/Flow/Value2 Ballard 1-1 Last Planner .0 Conceptual Framework Production processes can be conceived in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of converting inputs to outputs. Practical Contribution Taking care to do necessary things. time reduction. Main Principles Hierarchical decomposition of activities. 2) as a flow of materials and information through time and space. Decomposition at joints.1 Conversion View Flow View Value Generation Nature of Construction a series of activities which convert inputs to outputs. However. process and participation. Elimination of waste (unnecessary activities). shielding. the flows of information & resources. and 3) as a process for generating value for customers.the gap between achieved and possible value. control and optimization by activity. Table 1. the conversion model has been dominant in the AEC (architectural/engineering/construction) industry until very recently (Koskela and Huovila. a value creating process which defines and meets customer requirements. All three conceptions are appropriate and necessary. Planning concerned with timing start and responsibility for activities through contracting or assigning. Taking care that the unnecessary is done as little as possible. decoupling. Planning concerned with timing. Elimination of value loss . Team approach. balancing. . Planning concerned with work structure. moving and waiting. Work breakdown structure. Methods & Practices Development and testing of ends against means to determine requirements.

projects are subject to uncertainty because of the pace of technological change and the rapid shifting of market opportunities and competitor actions. and allocating costs to each part such that the rollup yields the total for the project. the entire structure is prone to collapse. Work breakdown structures are driven by scoping and budget concerns and have the objectives of insuring that all the work scope is included in one of the parts. airport terminals. the project performs successfully. Management techniques such as work breakdown structures and earned value analysis belong to this conversion model.) poses difficult management problems to which the models and techniques based on the conversion view have proven inadequate. This is fundamentally a contracting mentality. and schedule commitments. When something goes wrong. process plants. Production management is the ‘local’ responsibility of those to whom the various parts are assigned or contracted. If everyone meets their contractual obligations. Tradeoffs between competing design criteria must be made throughout the design process. which can subsequently be controlled against scope. Unfortunately.The design and construction of AEC facilities (buildings. which facilitates the management of contracts rather than the management of production or work flow. Production management concepts and techniques based on the conversion model have not proven capable of solving these difficult problems. The heart of the conversion model is the assumption that the work to be done can be divided into parts and managed as if those parts were independent one from another. Ballard 1-2 Last Planner . this approach is the opposite of robust. etc. budget. This division into parts is necessary in order to allocate responsibility to internal or external work centers. often with incomplete information and under intense budget and schedule pressure. highways. Increasingly. insuring that no work scopes overlap. as it very often does.

etc.). Conceptualizing the design and construction process as a flow of information and materials lends itself to reducing waste by minimizing time information or materials spend waiting to be used. As a contribution to the integration of all three models. Eppinger. et al. 1. conceptualizing the design and construction process as a flow of information and materials allows coordination of interdependent flows and the integration of design with supply and site construction. organizational means for integration. including design decomposition. Product development processes also are struggling with other issues relevant to the design of AEC facilities. flow. toasters. and value models. time spent inspecting information or materials for conformance to requirements. et al. and time spent moving information or materials from one specialist to the next. time spent reworking information or materials to achieve conformance. 1988.2 Assumptions Fundamental assumptions underlying this research include the following: Ballard 1-3 Last Planner . etc. Such processes have developed potentially useful concepts especially in the area of value. 1990. (Hayes. we might consider the product development processes employed by firms designing and manufacturing consumer products (automobiles.If a management philosophy and tools are needed that fully integrate the conversion. printers. this thesis applies the flow model to managing the design and construction of AEC facilities. identification of customer needs and translation into engineering specifications (Ulrich and Eppinger 1993). Gebala and Eppinger. 1991). Further.

flow.3 q Production management is conceived to consist of criteria determination and work structuring in the ‘planning’ phase. conversion. and value. Ballard 1-4 Last Planner . i. and to consist of work flow control and production unit control in the ‘execution’ or ‘control’ phase.K. More recently. “Customer value” is understood to include not only the fitness for use of the facility considered with regard to functionality. e. q "Production" is understood to include both designing and making. and scheduling tasks are also not 3 There may be differences between the U. production management should be conceived as having the purpose of creating customer value while minimizing waste in time and cost. consequently value generation and flow management concepts and techniques are underdeveloped. in the use of these terms. This thesis treats only the flow view. not planning functions. the determination of customer needs and their translation into design criteria. This thesis treats only control functions.S.q Current construction industry production management thinking and practice is dominated by the conversion model.. Similarly. in some instances. project delivery within a time and for a cost that meets the customer’s market and financial needs. but also with regard to all other criteria to which the customer attaches value. Hence the effort to be precise. q To be consistent with all three models. the theory of producing artifacts has emerged from efforts to better manage factories..g. The historical development of production theory in manufacturing has erroneously suggested that production is entirely concerned with 'making'. and U. Criteria determination belongs to the value generation view. work structuring activities such as identification. the term "manufacturing" has acquired greater scope than merely factory production.e. sequencing. For the most part. It does not treat the very first and fundamental production management activity.

3 Contribution to Knowledge This dissertation proposes to make the following contributions to knowledge: q Adapted from manufacturing4. 1997). The Last Planner system of production control has proven an effective tool for improving the productivity of the production units that implement its procedures and techniques (Ballard and Howell. is presented that exemplifies the concept of control as causing events to conform to plan.e. q Improvements to the Last Planner system of production control are developed and tested in a series of case studies. as distinct from the traditional conception of project control in terms of after-the-fact variance detection.treated here.4 The Author's Role in the Research 4 I. resulting in new concepts and techniques. from the models and theories developed in industrial engineering Ballard 1-5 Last Planner . The scope of this thesis is the control functions of production unit control and work flow control. Project controls in the AEC industry have focused on detecting variances from project objectives for cost and schedule. and also extends application of the system to design.. 1. a system for production control. the Last Planner system. which promises substantial benefits in project cost and duration reduction. This dissertation shifts the focus from the productivity of the immediate production unit to the reliability of work flow between production units. and have not directly dealt with the management of production. 1. q Appropriate application of the production control system is shown to improve work flow reliability.

19967).The Last Planner system has been in development by the author since 1992. 1997 8 Koskela. Several papers have previously been published by this author on the subject. During that development. 1993-45). 1996). Ballard. and eventually was extended from construction to design (Nokia8 and Hewlett-Packard9. which is clearly a defect rate and a product of the quality management mentality. such measurements revealed a positive correlation10. 1997 Ballard. and Casten (1996) 7 Ballard and Howell. The shift to work flow reliability reflected the author's increasing awareness of the revolution in manufacturing inspired by the Toyota Production System and eventually labeled "lean production". DMOS-6. Howell. and Tanhuanpaa (1997) 9 Miles (1998) 10 For examples. and also contact with the thinking of Lauri Koskela regarding production theory and its application to the construction industry. and the productivity of that crew. A key metric of the Last Planner system is the percentage of assignments completed (PPC). the first of them in 1993 (Ballard. the objective shifted from improving productivity to improving the reliability of work flow. The initial framework came from the quality management and productivity improvement initiatives that dominated construction industry performance improvement efforts in the 1980s. its PPC. see the references footnoted previously. This resulted from a change in conceptual framework. Not surprisingly. added a lookahead process to shape and control work flow (PARC. Ballard 1-6 Last Planner . Given the objective of improving productivity. 1993) at the founding conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Last Planner research began with a focus on improving the quality of assignments in weekly work plans (Koch Refinery Mid-Plants Project. the 5 6 Ballard and Howell. measurements were made of the relationship between the defect rate of a crew. However. 19956.

along with Mark Reynolds. The more powerful and fundamental opportunity to coordinate action among multiple crews was hidden by the dominance of what Koskela has called the "conversion model" and its exclusive focus on the activity as the unit of control rather than work flow. with a clear conceptual basis in production theory a la Koskela and an explicit and self-conscious objective of managing work flow. However. One purpose of this dissertation is to describe what was done to improve work flow reliability. dedicated to research. Managing Director of Lean Construction International. of which this author is Research Director. training and consulting in construction industry production management. identifying and quantifying the specific benefits will be a matter for future research. based in London. the Last Planner system had evolved to roughly its current form. What remained to be done was to learn how to improve work flow reliability above the 35%-65% range commonly discovered up to that time. The second purpose of this research is to explore applicability of the Last Planner system to design.activity focus characteristic of the productivity improvement 'mind' concealed the importance of that crew's PPC for the productivity of the crews that followed it and built upon its work product. 11 The Lean Construction Institute was founded in August of 1997 as a partnership between Gregory A. Even the introduction of a lookahead process was motivated initially by the observation that simply shielding a crew from poor assignments was insufficient to optimize crew productivity. both of which required managing load or work flow. Iris Tommelein and Todd Zabelle have become partners in the enterprise. measured by PPC. Prior to the founding of the Lean Construction Institute (LCI) in August of 199711. and the results achieved. To do so required matching load and capacity. Howell and Glenn Ballard. That improving work flow reliability is beneficial hardly requires argument. All case studies were carried out under the Ballard 1-7 Last Planner . Subsequently. All the case studies reported in this thesis were undertaken as research projects for LCI.

Conclusions from the case studies are reported in Chapter 10. Next Stage.4 Structure of the Dissertation Traditional project control theory and practice is described and critiqued in Chapter Two. followed by a glossary of terms. The Last Planner System of Production Control is presented in Chapter Three as satisfying the requirements revealed by the critique. 7. who also was the primary participant in project events and the primary collector of case study data. Chapter Four describes the research methodology used in the dissertation and is followed by Chapters 5. and an appendix consisting of documents from the design case. 6. 8. a bibliography. each devoted to a case study. direction of this author. Ballard 1-8 Last Planner . a list of references.1. and 9.

1 What is Production Control? The purpose of this chapter is to provide a critique of production control theory and practice. Within the world of construction. Design and engineering have infrequently been conceived as production processes. and consequently is primarily focused on products for a mass market. etc.CHAPTER TWO: CRITIQUE OF PRODUCTION CONTROL 2. plant maintenance. forestry. 2. manufacturing (in the sense of 'making'). ships and airplanes.g. with only occasional forays into construction.1. mining.. at least in the sense of making prototypes. Ballard 2-1 Last Planner . e. which has dealt almost entirely with one type of production. There are exceptions to the products being moveable. manufacturing in this sense is approached mostly closely by 'manufactured housing'. Although the meaning of the term at its most universal is synonymous with “making”. 12 Exceptions occur with thinkers and writings regarding product development. fishing. “manufacturing” is most commonly12 used to denote the making of many copies from a single design. agriculture. building maintenance. which by its nature must integrate designing and making. the focus almost entirely being placed on making things rather than designing them. But first it is necessary to clarify what is meant by “production control”. namely.1 The Meaning of “Production” Production has been an explicit topic of study primarily in industrial engineering. most of those products being moveable from the place manufactured to the place of use. although still copies from a single design.

1996. house. A subset of this category concern themselves with the psychological/sociological aspects of manufacturing management (Scherer. as distinct from ‘fabricating’. etc) is completed. Vollman et al. among them ‘assembly’. 1993). 1992). along with shipbuilding and airplane assembly. Many publications exist on the topic of production management in manufacturing. Early and influential production management theorists include Jack Burbidge (1983. the larger part of which adopt the perspective of the industrial or production engineer (Bertrand et al. the assembled product eventually becomes too large to be moved through assembly stations. 1998). Burbidge's groundbreaking thought began to emerge in the 1960s. plant. The work of Ohno and Shingo was concentrated in the period of the late 50's into the 70's. so named in part to counterpose it to "mass" production. Taiichi Ohno (1988) and Shigeo Shingo (1988) were the primary architects of the Toyota Production System. the archetype for lean production. The development of alternatives to mass production over the last 40 years has been revolutionary. so the stations (work crews) must be moved through them. 1990) reported the findings of an international study of the automotive industry and was followed by Lean Thinking (Womack and Jones. In all these instances of assembly. Edwards Deming (1986). construction is often categorized as a type of ‘fixed position manufacturing’ (Schmenner.Various types of making have been proposed. adding additional components and subassemblies until the artifact (building. 1991. The Machine That Changed the World (Womack et al. to mention but a few from the West. tunnel. Hopp and Spearman. For example. 1996) Ballard 2-2 Last Planner . highway. 1988) and W. 1990. Deming was instrumental in the implementation of quality management and statistical quality control concepts and techniques in Japan after the 2nd World War. the joining of parts into a whole. Murrill. bridge.. the shaping of materials.

command. 2. verify. Accounting is the essence of project control theory. Riggs. Ballard 2-3 Last Planner . Defining production as the designing and making of artifacts allows us to understand how construction is a type of production and also that design is an essential component in production generally and in construction specifically. to regulate. 1986). 1999). It has long been associated with accounting. The essential activity is monitoring actual costs or schedule performance against target in order to identify negative variances. Womack and Jones have popularized and made more easily accessible the concepts and techniques of lean production. more fully described in section 2. to check.2 below (Diekmann and Thrush. 1997) is the foremost production theorist in construction.1. His study of the applicability of newly emergent manufacturing concepts and techniques to the construction industry has driven him back to the development of a theory of production as such (Koskela. Corrective action is obviously necessary in order to correct such negative variances.which presented the principles and basic concepts behind the new forms of manufacturing and proposed to extend them to the entire enterprise. 1996. Lauri Koskela (Koskela 1992. Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). but the literature hardly addresses corrective action. Koskela and Huovila 1997. 1996. 1986.2. 1999. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary. its meanings include to dominate.2 THE MEANING OF “CONTROL” The term “control” has a wide range of meanings. Koskela et al. The Old French contreroller: to keep a roll of accounts.

Bucciarelli (1984) reports that designers spend 85-90% of their time talking. Feedforward is initiated by a comparison of actual with target inputs. 1993). Feedback is initiated by a comparison of actual with target outputs. the quality of available assignments. In factory systems.. Production control theorists working in manufacturing distinguish two primary ways of regulating work flow in manufacturing systems: push and pull. 1985).Industrial process control introduces feedback and feedforward mechanisms for regulating a process (Murrill. have found social and organizational issues to be of great importance. searching. Pull systems release materials or information into a system based on the state of the system (the amount of work in process. Applicability of these concepts to production control has been explored by this author (Ballard. i. etc) in addition to due dates (Hopp and Spearman. in which coordination of a number of interdependent specialists is managed by rules for taking turns 'writing on a blackboard'. Ballard 2-4 Last Planner . for example) for the products of which they are parts. etc. negotiating. In construction. 1996). meeting. but specifically applies to the internal customer of each process. and despite their technological orientation. AI adherents have been in the forefront of empirical study of design. as opposed to drawing and calculating. for contributing to their collaborative work (Hayes-Roth. pull may be derivative ultimately from customer orders. The artificial intelligence community contributes the blackboard system of control. Push systems release materials or information into a system based on preassigned due dates (from a master production schedule.” (p.89). writing. pull is ultimately derivative from target completion dates.e. particularly in large projects. 1999). Finger et al (1995) conclude: “The social process plays a major role in the articulation and realization of the product design.

1992). According to PMI’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. but perhaps most of all time and cost. dynamic systems are regulated not by anything resembling a central mind. time. Any or all of these could conceivably concern the actual production process itself. dynamic behavior. The reductionistic paradigm … needs to be replaced by a holistic paradigm of agile activity. there must be a change in our thinking paradigm.” 2. but through the independent action of distributed decision makers. human resources. risk. project management includes the management of integration. quality.” The making (i. This focus on product uniqueness and the project form of organization has dominated thinking about production of the built environment so far as to discourage learning from non-project industries such as product manufacturing (Koskela. “a project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique product or service.2.2 Project Management 2. Manufacturing is not deterministic! …the problem of systems design for shop floor control is no longer the problem of ‘optimization’. Ballard 2-5 Last Planner . communications. manufacturing) of multiple copies of a product does not occur through projects so understood. Again according to PMI (1996). scope.e.Some theorists (Kelly. “To master the challenges of the future. and procurement. and evolutionary development.. 1994) propose that complex.1 THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE The construction industry is organized in projects and current production theory and practice are heavily influenced by the concepts and techniques of project management. The following excerpt from Eric Scherer’s introduction to Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective indicates the emergence of a new conceptual framework. cost.

What is missing in this distinction is the concept of the project itself as a temporary production system linked to other temporary and permanent production systems for materials. and project management consists of the tools and techniques for managing problem solving processes in groups. a project may be to solve a problem of getting voters to register. the former being characteristic of all types of projects and the latter specific to the various types of production with which projects may be involved. On projects that do have production objectives. Projects as such have no necessary connection with production. Schedule control is concerned with managing changes to the schedule rather than with execution of scheduled work. activity sequencing. Cost management is treated very much in the same way as time management. There is no mention of structuring work for flow or of defining activities so that they facilitate the actual performance of the work. equipment. Activities are to be defined so as to facilitate a division of labor and subsequent tracking (accounting) of conformance to requirements. ‘project’ becomes virtually synonymous with a single instantiation of the problem solving process. Ballard 2-6 Last Planner . In this broad sense of the term. in Koskela’s terms. schedule development. and schedule control.Time management is said to consist of activity definition. For example. The focus is entirely on delivering project objectives. on the transformation or conversion processes (activities) and not on flow or value generation processes. The question for project management thus remains: ‘Who manages production and how?’ PMI differentiates between project processes and product-oriented processes (page 27). with the exception of expediting as a type of time management corrective action (see page 72). that there is no repetition or cycling to be managed (“conditional diagramming methods” are mentioned-see page 63-but not developed). etc. activity duration estimating. Activity sequencing assumes that handoffs from one set of specialists to the next occur only once. labor.

ultimately. “This (project control) system must provide the information needed for the project team and project participants to identify and correct problem areas and. but is not directly the business of project management.2. we further examine traditional project controls and their difference from the concept of control in the Last Planner system. to keep project costs and schedule ‘under control’. 1997). 2. Production control conceives production as a flow of materials and information among cooperating specialists. which is to be introduced in Chapter 3. The objective is to detect negative variances from target. so corrective action can be taken. the objects of control are time and resources. In the following. material. Resources (labor hours. in which the purpose of control is to cause events to conform to plan. Consequently.production itself takes place alongside project management. project control consists of monitoring progress toward project objectives and taking corrective action when the ship appears to be off course. The received wisdom regarding AEC project control systems is founded on a widely shared conception of their purpose.2 CRITIQUE OF THE TRADITIONAL PROJECT CONTROL MODEL Project control has been hitherto conceived and carried out consistently with the conversion or transformation view of projects (Koskela and Huovila. This concept of project control is very different from production control. dedicated to the generation of value for customer and stakeholders. 1986). indirects) are planned and controlled Ballard 2-7 Last Planner . In traditional project control. which is dedicated to causing events to conform to plan and to replanning when events cannot be conformed.” (Diekmann and Thrush. This is quite different from the active concept of control dominant in manufacturing production control systems. especially those employing a pull strategy. equipment.

e. efficient use of resources.32 labour-hours regardless of the actual number of hours consumed in its production.2=. That is a measure of production against schedule. scheduling. i. Monitoring checks progress of tasks against the schedule and forecasts when work will be completed.through cost control systems. Progress toward project completion is tracked by accumulating the earned hours and comparing that to the total hours to be earned for the entire project. A budget is prepared for each resource. Ballard 2-8 Last Planner . and monitoring. The objective of time control is production or progress. suppose the project schedule calls for production of 10 piping isometric drawings at time t.g. Rates of resource consumption are established for the various kinds of work to be performed on a project.. Controlling time involves planning. Completing an individual piping isometric drawing earns 9.88 (9 x 9. the use of resources is monitored against their budgets.. and periodic forecasts are made of resource requirements based on the current state of the project. Decisions made regarding budget and schedule. Only 83. productivity and production must recognize their interdependence.2 scheduled. not productivity.e. the objective of which is productivity. 9.4 labour-hours per purchase order. Planning decides what is to be accomplished and in what sequence. so that portion of the project is 10% behind schedule (83. but only 9 drawings have been produced.88/93.32 engineering labour-hours per piping isometric drawing or 12.32) hours have been earned of the 93. For example. Scheduling determines task duration and timing. which propose a solution to the problem that progress and expenditure of resources need not coincide.90). Productivity and production are formally related in earned value systems.

quality control is invoked as a separate control mechanism. it would have the design manager believe that a project is performing well if it is earning labor hours at the budget unit rate and also earning sufficient hours to maintain a scheduled earnings plan expressed as percentages of earned hours to total hours to be earned. it has proven necessary to establish schedule milestones to enforce adherence to a work sequence. Suppose it has taken only 80 hours to produce the 9 piping isometric drawings. the performance factor is . As for the issue of the timing of work. Consequently.95 and the piping group is operating at 95% of its budget for isometric drawings.g. the project is behind schedule. but rather controlling against the objectives of avoiding calculational and dimensional errors.. Production is poor and productivity is good. although rarely if ever controlling against the objective of expressing customer needs in engineering specifications. By itself. but under budget. Ballard 2-9 Last Planner .Productivity can be quite a different story. These rear guard actions are frequently ineffective against the dominant progress and productivity controls. The obvious weakness in this control mechanism is that projects may exhibit budget productivity and be on the earnings plan. but not be doing the right work in the right way at the right time. which consequently cause managers to throw the lever in the wrong direction because they misevaluate actual project performance (Howell and Ballard. Earned value analysis is a means for controlling projects through productivity and progress. out of sequence). the train is destined to eventually run off the rails because work is being produced that does not conform to product quality requirements or to process quality requirements (e. 1996).88 hours were earned. Although things appear to be on track. Since 83. In this case.

Equally neglected is consideration of capability. The objective is to divide the work to be done in the project into parts so they can be monitored and controlled. forecasts made. is neglected in this perspective. 1982).” (p.] Further decomposition in the traditional process eventually defines work packages as the smallest unit. Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control. It appears to be assumed that costs arise within that part of the project in which they are detected. and corrective action can be taken. [NB: Inclusion of the flow view adds new criteria to the decomposition process. given the default assumption that tasks/work packages/contracts can be carried out. The dominance of the conversion view is perhaps best revealed in the following quotes: “A work package is a cost center. James M. The flow view. Further. not only for budgeting and monitoring. Structure work for flow and assembly. 1986). 1986). In so doing. with its interdependence of parts (both as regards the 'product' and the process of making that product).” (p. we want to break the whole into parts so we can more easily put the parts back together again. control is essentially control of behaviour. the WBS provides a data base from which problem areas can be identified. Diekmann and Thrush. “A WBS provides a framework for integrated schedule and cost planning and allows for monitoring and control by management by establishing the manner in which estimates are assigned and costs are accumulated and summarized. Ballard 2-10 Last Planner . 21. 21. Work packages often correspond to contract packages or to pay items within a single contract. No mention is made of the production process as such. Neil. Diekmann and Thrush. Roughly speaking. “The WBS provides the framework for defining the project from the top all the way down to its smallest components and for accumulating the costs associated with each piece. 73.Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a key element in traditional project controls.” (p.

Despite the focus on cost and schedule ‘accounting’. that would be consistent with the traditional view.” (p. “These problems can be easily traced to their source allowing early detection of unfavorable trends. 1986). Ballard and Howell (1996) suggest that it is impossible to make good decisions about causes or corrections of deviations. 33. Diekmann and Thrush. One can hardly avoid concluding that the traditional control Ballard 2-11 Last Planner . They appear to assume that causes of deviation will be apparent and the appropriate corrective action obvious. 28). “Without corrective actions a project control system becomes merely a cost/schedule reporting system. adding to the “…growing evidence that network analysis on its own is not sufficient to model and manage the behaviour of projects. 1994). p. without understanding work flow. Diekmann and Thrush devote less than two pages of a 108 page paper to corrective action and provide no more advice than to inform managers and supervisors at every level in the project about deviations so they can “…correct those trouble spots. 1986). but rather that sin is inevitable. They propose to provide additional information to project managers so they avoid misevaluating the state of the project and consequently making decisions that cause things to get worse rather than better (See p. but that expectation is not rooted in the idea that variation is natural. However. the traditional view is that control consists of correcting deviations from plan. If the standard corrective actions are indeed ‘Try harder!’ and ‘Add more men!’. theorists recognize the primacy of the control act itself. Deviations are expected. 29.. 125 of Rodrigues.” (p.We are clearly dealing here with a type of push system and the controls appropriate to a push system. Advocates of system dynamics have proposed to supplement traditional network analyses and models.” (p. 1995. relying only on productivity and progress data. Diekmann and Thrush.” (Williams et al. 154).

The Netherlands. only their work is presented in detail. The work of Koskela is described only to the extent needed to remind the reader of his vital contributions. VTT. culminating in their joint PhD thesis at Delft University. Melles and Wamelink (1993) developed a very similar line of thinking independently. Lauri Koskela. Alexander Laufer’s work on project planning takes a production control orientation by virtue of its focus on uncertainty and variability and their management.system is indeed based almost exclusively on the conversion or activity view of the production system. Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design. 2. Senior Researcher at Finland’s building research institute. is the leading theorist in production management in construction. “Contrary to what is customary in the construction industry we shall not Ballard 2-12 Last Planner . 2. is also a highly relevant work for this research.3. Addis’ 1990 book. Ballard and Howell’s contributions are described in Chapter Three. That should in no way be taken as an indication of relative importance of the various contributions.3 Previous Applications of Production Control Concepts to the AEC Industry A survey of the literature reveals several primary contributors to the theory and practice of production (as opposed to project) control in the construction industry. Melles and Wamelink (1993) explain. Given the relative obscurity of Melles and Wamelink’s.1 MELLES AND WAMELINK Introducing their discussion of the theory of production control. The University of Reading has been active in the field of production management for a number of years. John Bennett’s Construction Management from 1985 is an excellent example of their work.

and production unit level. are met. For example. Melles and Wamelink’s work identifies functionalities AEC industry production control systems should possess.assume. workload control.” For Melles and Wamelink. beforehand. workload acceptance. aggregate production control. In addition to the primary contribution of directing attention to manufacturing theory and practice. speaking of project coordination. control at company level. and allocation planning (by means of “task scheme”).e.. so that the preconditions in which the production process is to be executed. Their specific objective was to assist in the design of information systems. detailed workorder scheduling. i. they did not explicitly apply their model to evaluation of current management systems and practice. identifying at the ‘factory’ level project coordination (achieved in part by network schedules).e. capacity allocation. Melles and Wamelink propose a ‘translation’ of the manufacturing model into decision functions appropriate to various types of construction. the overwhelmingly negative results of so doing are implicit in their critique of project management software.. …Production control in construction companies has traditionally been aimed at the control of projects. The manufacturing model on which they rely is that of Bertrand et al. and 2) Thinking in terms of decision functions within the hierarchical levels. they comment. material coordination. 1990. and shop floor control. “…it can immediately be Ballard 2-13 Last Planner . i. they emphasize: 1) Thinking in terms of hierarchical levels of decision. factory level.. workorder release. production control consists of “…the activities relating to the adjustment of all aspects of the production process. the theories in the field of project management. Consequently. mobilisation planning (by means of “six weeks scheme”).” Drawing on manufacturing production control. However.

etc. Percent Plan Complete (PPC). mobilization planning. This principle has also been called the Complete Kit by Ronen (Ronen 1992). is the number of planned activities completed. "Thirdly. not recognizable.) are. In fact.deduced that the project management software available on the market is indeed about a certain aspect (within the framework. which is to be presented in Chapter Three: "The first principle is that the assignments should be sound regarding their prerequisites. the decision function project coordination). the crew can switch to another task. and expressed as a percentage.” (p. divided by the total number of planned activities. Thus. "The second principle is that the realization of assignments is measured and monitored. This focus on plan realization diminishes the risk of variability propagation to downstream flows and tasks.3. The other decision functions (resource planning. in-process improvement is realized. Thus. causes for non-realization are investigated and those causes are removed. The related metrics. 35).. 1993. 2. continuous. Thus. This critique is made more explicitly in Wamelink et al. generally speaking. The Complete Kit suggests that work should not start until all the items required for completion of a job are available. this principle strives to minimize work in suboptimal conditions. in fact. "The fourth principle suggests maintaining a buffer of tasks which are sound for each crew. he claims they are true for the Last Planner system. if the assigned task turns out to be impossible to carry out.2 KOSKELA Lauri Koskela (1999) proposes the following design criteria or principles for a production control system. This principle is instrumental in avoiding lost Ballard 2-14 Last Planner .

Neglect of variability causes greater variability. variability results in some or all of the following: § § § buffering of flows. variability in deliveries. and there is always an associated penalty.4 Criteria for a Design Production Control System The preceding review and critique of the literature suggests the following guidelines and criteria for an effective design production control system: q Variability must be mitigated and remaining variability managed. the prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready. This.” 2. variability in processing times. "The fifth priciple suggests that in lookahead planning (with time horizon of 3-4 weeks). but pull systems are Ballard 2-15 Last Planner . it ensures that too great material buffers do not emerge on site. According to Hopp and Spearman (1996). On the other hand.production (due to starving) or reduced productivity (due to suboptimal conditions). A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit. The realization of assignments is measured and monitored. is a pull system that is instrumental in ensuring that all the prerequisites are available for the assignments. Variability is virtually disregarded in current control systems. 1996). etc. Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed. The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready. which increases lead times and work-in-process lower resource utilization lost throughput q q q q q q Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites. in fact. But the construction industry certainly has its share of variability: variability in quality. Not only do pull systems usually perform better than push systems (Hopp and Spearman. The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques.

drawn by analogy from the path of a vehicle bound for a specific destination with a target arrival time and a specified spending budget or otherwise limited resources. If the project is to be conceived rather as a temporary production system.. etc. What needs to be controlled is work flow. dynamic production systems cannot be controlled centrally. Traditional project control assumes the necessity and possibility of central control. 1992). The object of traditional project control has been behavior. The underlying image is that of a single mind and many hands. Corrective action must be taken within an understanding of these networks and of the impact of changes in sequence.especially needed in conditions of variability.g. Green's comment was specifically directed to the tendency of designers and engineers toward local suboptimization. but rather are adaptive creatures driven by decision making at their periphery. pull or push). Production thinking and practice in all areas has focused primarily on the task goals of production and neglected flow and value (Huovila and Koskela. the course correction model is radically oversimplified and inappropriate. q Decision making is distributed in production control systems. q The project is conceived as a temporary production system. The flow of materials and information is what is to be controlled. 1997). Ballard 2-16 Last Planner . The model for corrective action in traditional project control is course correction. They flow through very complex networks of temporary and permanent production systems. local control strategies (e. q Production control facilitates work flow and value generation. but that is a general tendency of any system in which there is a division of labor. In Chapter Three. the Last Planner system of production control is described and evaluated against these criteria. buffer location and sizing. processing methodologies. q Production control resists the tendency [of designers and engineers] toward local suboptimization (Green. Arguably.

Planning high in the organization tends to focus on global objectives and constraints. specific work will be done tomorrow. design and construction require planning and control done by different people. These objectives drive lower level planning processes that specify means for achieving those ends. at different places within the organization. governing the entire project.CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL 3. and (hopefully) are the result of a planning process that best matches WILL with SHOULD within the constraints of CAN. That type of plans has been called "assignments". The person or group that produces assignments is called the "Last Planner" (Ballard and Howell 1994). They are unique because they drive direct work rather than the production of other plans. 3.1 Hierarchical Structure Aside from the simplest and smallest jobs. Ultimately. someone (individual or group) decides what physical. They say what WILL be done.2 Should-Can-Will-Did The term "assignments" stresses the communication of requirements from Last Planner to design squad or construction crew. Ballard 3-1 Last Planner ` . But these products of planning at the production unit level are also commitments to the rest of the organization. and at different times during the life of a project.

Figure 3. Unfortunately. that does not excuse creating them or leaving them in place. rules and procedures. and a set of tools that facilitiate the implementation of those procedures. the system has two components: production unit control and work flow Ballard 3-2 Last Planner ` . What is needed is to shift the focus of control from the workers to the flow of work that links them together. last planner performance is sometimes evaluated as if there could be no possible difference between SHOULD and CAN. Erratic delivery of resources such as input information and unpredictable completion of prerequisite work invalidates the presumed equation of WILL with SHOULD. and quickly results in the abandonment of planning that directs actual production.1 SHOULD CAN LAST PLANNER PLANNING PROCESS WILL The formation of assignments in the Last Planner planning process. Regarding the procedures. Failure to proactively control at the production unit level increases uncertainty and deprives workers of planning as a tool for shaping the future. The Last Planner production control system is a philosophy. "What will we do next week?” “Whatever is on the schedule. Granted that it is necessary to overcome obstacles." or “Whatever is generating the most heat.” Supervisors consider it their job to keep pressure on subordinates to produce despite obstacles.

e. The job of the first is to make progressively better assignments to direct workers through continuous learning and corrective action. through the results of plan execution.3 Production Unit Control The key performance dimension of a planning system at the production unit level is its output quality. the quality of plans produced by the Last Planner. can be done. project commitments and goals. The following are some of the critical quality characteristics of an assignment: q q q q The assignment is well defined. The function of work flow control is perhaps evident in its name—to proactively cause work to flow across production units in the best achieveable sequence and rate. 3. The "right amount" is that amount the planners judge their production units capable of completing after review of budget unit rates and after examining the specific work to be done. The "right sequence" is that sequence consistent with the internal logic of the work itself. and execution strategies. Percent Plan Complete (PPC) is the number of planned activities completed divided Ballard 3-3 Last Planner ` .control. i. Planning system performance is more easily measured indirectly.. The work selected is practical or sound. The right sequence of work is selected. even when corrections are necessary. i. The right amount of work is selected.e. but such in-process inspection does not routinely produce measurement data. The quality of a front line supervisor's assignments may be reviewed by a superior prior to issue. “Well defined” means described sufficiently that it can be made ready and completion can be unambiguously determined. "Practical" means that all prerequisite work is in place and all resources are available.

g. e. workers reassigned temporarily to a "hot" task. budget unit rates. Measuring performance at the Last Planner level does not mean you only make changes at that level. PPC analysis can become a powerful focal point for breakthrough initiatives. so improvement can be made in future performance. process or function. etc. q Failure to apply quality criteria to assignments. i.by the total number of planned activities.4 Work Flow Control Here we turn to the topic of work flow control. q 3. lack of a computer or plotter. i. Given quality plans. the information system incorrectly indicated that information was available or that prerequisite work was complete. too much work was planned. q Change in priority. Root causes of poor plan quality or failure to execute planned work may be found at any organizational level. Percent Plan Complete measures the extent to which the front line supervisor's commitment (WILL) was realized. Analysis of nonconformances can then lead back to root causes. higher PPC corresponds to doing more of the right work with given resources. e.. to higher productivity and progress. This provides the initial data needed for analysis and improvement of PPC. e.g.g.g. being derivative from an extremely complex set of directives: project schedules.e. causing work to move between Ballard 3-4 Last Planner ` . e. Reasons could include: Faulty directives or information provided to the Last Planner. expressed as a percentage. and consequently for improving project performance. preferably by front line supervisors or the engineers or craftsmen directly responsible for plan execution. The first thing needed is identification of reasons why planned work was not done.e. q Design error or vendor error discovered in the attempt to carry out a planned activity. PPC becomes the standard against which control is exercised at the production unit level. execution strategies. q Failure in coordination of shared resources.

1. including activity definition. These functions are accomplished through various specific processes. constraints analysis. In contrast. Ballard 3-5 Last Planner ` .production units in a desired sequence and rate. Work Flow Control coordinates the flow of design. each of which will be discussed in the following pages. pulling work from upstream production units. and matching load and capacity. and installation through production units. but typically perform only the function of highlighting what SHOULD be done in the near term. the lookahead process within the Last Planner system serves multiple functions. the lookahead process has the job of work flow control. supply. Lookahead schedules are common in current industry practice. In the hierarchy of plans and schedules. Production Unit Control coordinates the execution of work within production units such as construction crews and design squads. as listed in Table 3.

it is often beneficial to have the team that is to do the work in the next phase of a project collectively produce a phase schedule that serves to coordinate actions that extend beyond the lookahead window (the period of time we choose to look ahead).Figure 3. and equipment. & sizing work we know can be done Weekly Work Plans Chart PPC & Reasons Resources Production Completed Work 5 Last Planner System with Lookahead Process highlighted The vehicle for the lookahead process is a schedule of potential assignments for the next 3 to 12 weeks. Tables 3. The number of weeks over which a lookahead process extends is decided based on project characteristics. labor. sequencing. and the lead times for acquiring information. the reliability of the planning system.2 and 3. Ballard 3-6 Last Planner ` . Indeed. The lookahead schedule is not a simple drop out from the master schedule. & sizing work we think can be done Action to prevent repetitive errors Current status & forecasts Lookahead Information Make work ready by screening & pulling Workable Backlog Selecting. sequencing.2 PLANNING SYSTEM Master Schedule Selecting. materials. respectively.3 are examples of construction and engineering lookahead schedules.

If the planner is not confident that the constraints can be removed. the potential assignments are retarded to a later date.3 is a schematic of the lookahead process. or allow to advance from one week to the next within the lookahead window. The general rule is to allow into the lookahead window.1 Functions of the Lookahead Process • Shape work flow sequence and rate • Match work flow and capacity • Decompose master schedule activities into work packages and operations • Develop detailed methods for executing work • Maintain a backlog of ready work • Update and revise higher level schedules as needed. which typically yields multiple assignments for each activity. Functions of the Lookahead Process Prior to entry into the lookahead window. then move forward a week each week until they are allowed to enter into workable backlog. Potential assignments enter the lookahead window 6 weeks ahead of scheduled execution. master schedule or phase schedule activities are exploded into a level of detail appropriate for assignment on weekly work plans. Then each assignment is subjected to constraints analysis to determine what must be done in order to make it ready to be executed. If the planner were to discover a Ballard 3-7 Last Planner ` . showing work flowing through time from right to left.Table 3. indicating that all constraints have been removed and that they are in the proper sequence for execution. Figure 3. only activities that can be made ready for completion on schedule.

Reducing variability allows reduction of buffer inventories. so shows only 4 weeks. The "5 Week Lookahead Schedule" excludes the week covered by the Weekly Work Plan. ready to be performed. buffers will be needed to absorb that variability. lab e l. inventories of all sort are to be minimized. " J". t o co ole rs ( 1 3 ) Charles' cre w 2 00 de g HW 1 -"H" x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CHW d elive rs 1 -8 -9 7 t hru 5 WK LOOKAHEAD 1 / 1 3/997 3/ 1/ # / 9 7 20 1 /# 7/ 97 2 2/ 3/ 97 # NEEDS M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S x x x 1. The objective is to maintain a backlog of sound work. 2 HW Punch.13 Weekly work plans are then formed from workable backlog. with assurance that everything in workable backlog is indeed workable. the assignment would not be allowed to move forward. Table 3. inventories of ready work in this case. Ballard 3-8 Last Planner ` . thus improving the productivity of those who receive the assignments and increasing the reliability of work flow to the next production unit. may seem contradictory to the goals of just-in-time.constraint (perhaps a design change or acquisition of a soils report) that could not be removed in time. but as long as there is variability in the flow of materials and information.2 PROJECT: Pilo t ACTIVITY Sc ot t 's cre w "CUP" AHUs-1 0 CHW. & "K" 1 st flr Punch. drains in "I" . Co nt rol va lve s for adde d VAV co ils Ne e d t unne ls paint e d & re le as e ma t e rials Ta ke of f & o rde r ma t e rials Mat er ial on s it e 20 0 de g HW 1 -"B" & 1 -"D" 1 st flr 2 0 0 d eg HW guide s & ancho rs Richa rd's c rew 2 -"A" HW & CHW x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x CHW in C. Nee d We s t Wing flr co ve re d. & t ag AHUs Ro n's cre w DI St e a m to Humid ifier DI St e a m Blowd own DI St e a m Co nd. lab e l & t ag x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Construction Lookahead Schedule14 13 14 Deliberately building inventories. To clarify. Mat er ials on sit e x x x x Mat er ials on sit e Che ck ma t e rial x x x x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e x x x x x x x x x x x Mat l de live ry 1 -8 -9 7 x x x x Re lea se mat l for 1 -1 5 -9 7 Mat er ial on s it e .13 .E-G t unnels Misc FCUs & co nd.HW de live rs 1 -2 0.

Other constraints might include permits. x x Help layout people complete a layout that will work well with tool install routing and drains into the tunnel. plus an open-ended category for all other constraints. and so on. input from tool install on installation preferences Correct tool list. x Prep. Different types of assignments have different constraints. then as reasons for failing to complete assignments on weekly work plans. intended use of the output. space. Complete Pkg 2 specifications Create work plans Send package to QA/QC reviewer for drain design review Start/complete QA/QC review x x x x x x x x x x x Final eqpt and mtl usage from mech & tool install. submittals. plot time x x Set of Package 2 review docs. x x x x x x x x x x Frozen layout. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Need questions from subs. they are subjected to constraints analysis. prerequisite work. We previously met these constraints in the discussion of Production Unit Control. pkg 1 dwgs. materials. The construction example in Table 3. labor and technical resources. equipment.3. design. prerequisite work (data. dwgs Engineering Lookahead Schedule Ballard 3-9 Last Planner ` . models). approvals. Final design dwgs for drains.1 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Once assignments are identified. Frozen layout. Design drains from tools to tunnel tie-ins. and labor. Need submittals from sub.4 lists contract.4. Dt: 3/14/02 Activity Week Ending: 3/28/02 M T W T F Week Ending: 4/4/02 M T W T F Week Ending: 4/11/02 M T W T F Week Ending: 4/18/02 M T W T F OUTSTANDING NEEDS Provide const support (Q & A) Review submittal(s) Aid with tool install dsgn effort. Design constraints can virtually be read from the Activity Definition Model: clarity of directives (level of accuracy required. applicable section of code). evaluations.3 Engineering Lookahead Schedule Project: Discipline: Process Planner: s Checked By. Table 3. inspections.

and provides the coordinator with early warning of problems. to become reactive to what happens to show up in your in-box or laydown yard. Figure 3. the tendency is to assume a throw-it-over-the-wall mentality. Ballard 3-10 Last Planner ` . In the absence of constraints analysis.2 PULLING Pulling is a method of introducing materials or information into a production process.Constraints analysis requires suppliers of goods and services to actively manage their production and delivery.3 The Lookahead Process: Make Ready by Screening & Pulling Master schedule activities entering 6th week 1 Assignments Screen assignments & make ready each week enough work to maintain 2 week workable backlog 2 3 4 5 6 Explode scheduled activities into work packages on entry to the lookahead window Workable Backlog Reasons why planned work not completed Notify coordinator of constraints status Make Ready by Screening and Pulling 3. hopefully with sufficient lead time to plan around them. Construction schedules have traditionally been push mechanisms. The alternative method is to push inputs into a process based on target delivery or completion dates.4.

a n d 5 . 8 .8.4 Screening Assignments: Statusing Constraints ID Activity S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m 2 6 0 s L in e s 4 . Table 3.K .4-K. making assignments ready in the lookahead process is explicitly an application of pull techniques.M .M . 8 D o u b le -u p 2/13/98 3 2 2 L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l Line L Doubleup S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n 2/16/98 2 9 0 e s 4 -M . 4 K. conformance of assignments to quality criteria constitute such a check on capability. Ballard 3-11 Last Planner ` . 8 2/9/98 1 7 0 E a s t W a llB e t w e e n L in e s 2 a n d 6 L in e D o u b le U p In t e r io r S m a l l W a l l s 3 F a n d 3 D D o u b le .M . a n d 5 K . pulling allows materials or information into a production process only if the process is capable of doing that work.K .3-H 3 1 0 L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l Line L Form In t e r io r S m a l l W a l l s 3 F a n d 3 D F o r m s 2/9/98 2/9/98 O K R F I 6 8 O K O K re b a r O K O K O K N o n e S ta rt C o n tra c t D e s i g n S u b m i t t a l s M a te r i a l s P r e . In our Last Planner system.u p S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n 2/13/98 7 2 0 2/13/98 1 1 4 6 e s 5 -M .8. 3 K. 3 . 3 .M . 3 .3-HDouble-up In t e r io r S m a l l W a l l s 3 F a n d 3 D S t rip 2/17/98 7 3 5 2/18/98 Constraints Analysis By contrast.R e q u i s i t e S p a c e E q u i p m e n t L a b o r O t h e r 7 0 0 2/9/98 1 1 4 2 S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m s L in e s 5 . 8 . Further.seeking to cause intersections in the future of interdependent actions. Last Planner is a type of pull system. 8 . Consequently. 8 .

Generally.g. so it is usually possible to wait until you know when it will be needed before ordering it. hence perhaps a reason for the infrequent use of pulling mechanisms. concrete cannot be ordered too far in advance of need. the lead time15 for concrete is short. Otherwise. a window of reliability greater than supplier lead time is needed in order for pulling to be most effective. It is often referred to as “supplier lead time”. 15 Lead time is the time in advance of delivery one must place an order. Fortunately. concrete.4 A Traditional (Push) Planning System PROJECT OBJECTIVES INFORMATION PLANNING THE WORK SHOULD RESOURCES EXECUTING THE PLAN DID A Traditional (Push) Planning System Certain things have long been pulled as opposed to pushed. With its short shelf life. the pulled items may not match up with the work to which they are to be applied.Figure 3.. supplier lead times are for the most part much greater than our accurate foresight regarding work completion. Ballard 3-12 Last Planner ` . e. In the industry now.

the lookahead process is supposed to maintain a backlog of workable assignments for each production unit (PU). Along with its other functions. which are themselves laden with the tremendous amounts of waste imbedded in conventional practice.4.3 MATCHING LOAD AND CAPACITY Matching load to capacity within a production system is critical for productivity of the production units through which work flows in the system. and is also critical for system cycle time. are at best averages based on historical data.Figure 3. Current estimating unit rates. the time required for something to go from one end to the other.5 Last Planner: A Pull System SHOULD CAN LAST PLANNER PLANNING PROCESS WILL Last Planner: A Pull System 3. To do so requires estimating the load various chunks of work will place on PUs and the capacities of PUs to process those chunks of work. such as the labor hours required to erect a ton of steel. When Ballard 3-13 Last Planner ` .

or. more commonly. Ballard 3-14 Last Planner ` . Whatever the accuracy of load and capacity estimates. the planner must still make some adjustments.4 THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE Last Planner adds a production control component to the traditional project management system. capacity can be changed to match load. As shown in Figure 3. 3. Pulling helps balance load to capacity because the PU can request what it needs and in the needed amounts. Including assignments on Weekly Work Plans is a commitment by the Last Planners (foremen. Load can be changed to match capacity by retarding or accelerating work flow. Given the advantages of maintaining a stable work force and avoiding frequent changes. Either load can be changed to match capacity.load and capacity are estimated. squad bosses) to what they actually WILL do. from which Weekly Work Plans can be formed. Capacity can be changed to match load by reducing or increasing resources. Last Planner can be understood as a mechanism for transforming what SHOULD be done into what CAN be done. are we assuming 30% resource utilization or 60%? What assumptions are being made about variation around averages? Can we expect actual unit rates to fall short of the average half the time? Clearly we need much more accurate data than is typically available. that will not be the case when there are pressures to meet scheduled milestones or end dates.6. a combination of the two. thus forming an inventory of ready work. the preference is often for adjusting load.4. However.

initiates replanning when the established sequence is either no longer feasible or no longer desirable. Planning establishes goals and a desired sequence of events for achieving goals.6 Project Objective Information Planning the Work SHOULD CAN Last Planner Process WILL Resources Production DID The Last Planner System 3. Consequently. deciding what and how much Ballard 3-15 Last Planner ` . 1998). When environments are dynamic and the production system is uncertain and variable. reliable planning cannot be performed in detail much before the events being planned. Control causes events to approximate the desired sequence. and initiates learning when events fail to conform to plan (Ballard.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control The functions of production management systems are planning and control.Figure 3.

Sequence: Are assignments selected from those that are sound in the constructability order needed by the production unit itself and in the order needed by customer processes? Are additional. etc. coordination with trades working in the same area. Definition: Are assignments specific enough that the right type and amount of materials can be collected. additional quality tasks available in case assignments fail or productivity exceeds expectations? Size: Are assignments sized to the productive capability of each crew or subcrew. which amounted to a requirement that learning be incorporated in the control process. the intent is to do whatever can be done to get the work ready before the week in which it is to be done. and size. and it is possible to tell at the end of the week if the assignment was completed? Soundness: Are all assignments sound..g.e. Experiments were performed to test the hypothesis that failures were in large part a result of lack of adequate work selection rules (these might also be called work release rules). lower priority assignments identified as workable backlog. A key early finding was that only about half of the assignments made to construction crews at the beginning of a week were completed when planned. while still being achievable within the plan period? Does the Ballard 3-16 Last Planner ` . the percentage of assignments completed was tracked (PPC: percent plan complete) and reasons for noncompletion were identified. movement of materials to the point of installation. How are such decisions made and can they be made better? These questions were the drivers of initial research in the area of production unit level planning and control under the title of the “Last Planner System”.. e. work can be coordinated with other trades. Quality criteria were proposed for assignments regarding definition. that is: Are all materials on hand? Is design complete? Is prerequisite work complete? Note: During the plan week. a summary report of which is included in Ballard and Howell (1997).work is to be done next by a design squad or a construction crew is rarely a matter of simply following a master schedule established at the beginning of the project. In addition. However. soundness. sequence. i. the foreman will have additional tasks to perform in order to make assignments ready to be executed.

improvements tended to be from PPC levels around 50% to the 65-70% level. 1997)16. corresponding to a PPC of 50%. The use of explicit work selection rules and quality criteria for assignments was termed “shielding production from upstream uncertainty and variation. with a corresponding increase of 30% in productivity. reasons for failing to complete planned assignments were dominated in most cases by materials-related problems. Further. Productivity improvement has ranged from 10% to 40%+. then increasing PPC to 70% is matched with an increase in utilization to 65%. However. The construction industry commonly uses lookahead schedules to focus supervisors’ attention on what work is supposed to be done in the near future. because of its short term nature. plan reliability (the percentage of assignments completed) increased. Consequently. a second element of the Last Planner System was created upstream of weekly work planning to control work flow and to make assignments ready by proactively acquiring the materials and design information needed. if initial utilization is 50%. 1997). For example. The tool for work flow control was lookahead schedules.” (Ballard and Howell 1994) Such shielding assures to a large degree that productive capacity is not wasted waiting for or looking for materials and such. Experiments in work flow control were performed using lookahead schedules in a very different way than had been traditional. crew productivity also increased (Ballard and Howell. and with it. shielding cannot avoid underloading resources when work flow is out of sequence or insufficient in quantity. Ballard 3-17 Last Planner ` . A 16 On the whole.assignment produce work for the next production unit in the size and format required? Learning: Are assignments that are not completed within the week tracked and reasons identified? As a result of applying these criteria. and by expediting and monitoring the completion of prerequisite work (Ballard. which amounts to a 30% improvement in productivity. It is hypothesized that these differences result from different initial resource utilization levels.

set of rules was proposed for allowing scheduled activities to remain or enter into each of the three primary hierarchical levels of the scheduling system: q q q Rule 1: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the master schedule unless positive knowledge exists that the activity should not or cannot be executed when scheduled. Consequently.e.. Week 2 is two weeks in the future. While some operations design can be performed once the type of operation and its general conditions are known. adjacent trades.. which individuals will be assigned to the work. a set of objectives was proposed for the lookahead process: q q q q q Shape work flow sequence and rate Match work flow and capacity Decompose master schedule activities into work packages and operations Develop detailed methods for executing work Maintain a backlog of ready work Lookahead windows are structured such that week 1 is next week. only if the activity has in fact been made ready. Rule 2: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the lookahead window only if the planner is confident that the activity can be made ready for execution when scheduled. detailed design (certainly of construction operations) cannot be done until certain additional information is available. Early data indicated that plans as close to scheduled execution as Week 2 only contained about half the assignments that later appeared on the weekly work plans for that week. the week for which a weekly work plan is being produced. i. detailed operations Ballard 3-18 Last Planner ` . Week 3 is three weeks in the future. Failures to anticipate assignments appear to result in large part from lack of detailed operations design and consequently could be remedied by incorporating detailed operations design into the lookahead process (see First Run Studies in the Glossary of Terms). Week 3’s percentage was only 40% (Ballard.e. i. competing claims on shared resources. 1997).. and so on. information regarding material staging areas. In addition. etc. Rule 3: Allow scheduled activities to be released for selection into weekly work plans only if all constraints have been removed.

There is no effective follow-up of decided action. the design tasks to be executed or input information needed are discussed in the weekly design meetings. Koskela et al (1997) report that the traditional method of design management on their test project was incapable of producing quality assignments. Design decisions are often made in improvized style. where a contractor representative (site manager) acts as the chairman. In practice. documentation of input information needs reported in design meetings. 3. The contractor may also organize meetings to address specific problems between design disciplines. It is provisionally assumed that this timing requirement applies also to design activities. but this will be subject to research findings.” (p. and described the traditional method as follows: “A drawing due date schedule. There are design meetings every two weeks or so. elements of the Last Planner System have previously been applied to the management of production during the design phase of projects. close in time to the scheduled start of the operation.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design Previous to the research reported in this dissertation. However. Thus. It seems that often parties come unprepared to the meeting. but are left for self-management by the design team. explicit commitment of design supervisors to tasks in the next few weeks. and only a part of output due is often available. Instead the order or timing of individual design tasks is not scheduled. this procedure is not perfect. 9) Among the improvement actions taken was progressive detailing of the schedule (in one month chunks). and decisions taken are not always remembered in next meetings. the Last Planner System had not been applied in full to design production control. and a summary drawing circulation list form the basis of design management.design should be performed within the lookahead window. However. the primary control set is to reach the drawing due dates. monitoring of Ballard 3-19 Last Planner ` .

1996) regarding the prevalence of plan quality failures.7. 1997) Figure 3. Miles (1998) reports a more complete and extensive implementation of the Last Planner System. VPT PPC (Koskela et al. design was completed approximately 10% earlier than anticipated. which included the lookahead process.8 Ballard 3-20 Last Planner ` .assignments completed. and identification of reasons for noncompletion. as shown in Figure 3. The research also replicated in design earlier findings in construction (Howell. (The negative dip in design meetings [SK] 10-12 resulted from a major design change. PPC soon rose to the 70% level. They found that failures to complete assignments were divided in a ratio of 2 to 1 between internal impacts they potentially could control and external impacts over which they had little or no control. As a result. and design costs were reduced by 7%.7 REALIZATION % OF ASSIGNED DESIGN TASKS 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 SK 8 SK 9 SK 10 SK 11 SK 12 SK 13 SK 14 SK 15 SK 16 PPC Number of tasks 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Number of tasks VTT Building Technology 1997.) The design time for the building was 30% under the standard time for the type of building and participants rated the method favorably. Figure 3. Overall PPC averaged around 75%.

Reasons for plan failure are tracked and analyzed.50 -1.00 -1. PPC measurement is central. That the Last Planner system of production control conforms to these criteria and principles should be apparent. Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites. The realization of assignments is measured and monitored. to the questions : 1. VPT question 3 question 5 The average replies.00 question 2 0. Design production contro resists the tendency toward local suboptimization. The lookahead process has the explicit purpose of maintaining a buffer of sound tasks and also actively makes Ballard 3-21 Last Planner ` .2. 1997) 3. Was it laborious to work according to the method? 5. The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques. Did the method yield benefits? 4.00 VTT Building Technology 1997. Was the availability of input data improved? 2. Should the method be used in the next project? Participant Survey (Koskela et al.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control Systems The criteria proposed in the previous chapter were: q q q q q q q q q q q Variability is mitigated and remaining variability managed. One of the quality criteria for assignments is soundness.50 question 4 0.50 -2. Decision making is distributed in design production control systems. Design production control facilitates work flow and value generation.00 2 -0.50 question 1 1.00 1. Was the decision making in design process improved? 3. The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready. It is explicitly dedicated to the reduction and management of variability. on a scale of -2 to 2. Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed. A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit. The project is conceived as a temporary production system.

applied both in lookahead planning and to weekly work plan assignments. 3. drawings. The framework for Last Planner is the conception of projects as temporary production systems. materials. rather than in design and engineering and its implementation has generally resulted in an improvement of work flow reliability. finally. Hitherto it has been used primarily in site construction. Pulling is evident both in the assignment quality criteria and in the make ready function within the lookahead process. to 65-70% PPC. Distributed decision making is evident in the requirement that only quality assignments be accepted and also in the work flow control decisions to be made within the lookahead process. Last Planner resists the tendency toward local suboptimization in its application of the criterion 'sequencing'. And. When the numerous specialists can rely on delivery of calculations. It has been successfully used in a series of projects ranging from oil refineries to commercial building construction. The questions driving this research are: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes ? It is intuitively obvious that making work flow more reliable (predictable) can reduce the cost or duration of the total project.scheduled tasks sound and facilitates work flow and value generation.8 Research Questions This new production planning and management method has been in development since 1992 (Ballard & Howell 1997). and prerequisite work from other Ballard 3-22 Last Planner ` . as measured by percent plan complete.

it is appropriate to focus the research question on improving work flow reliability. It is also apparent that construction benefits from greater reliability in the flow to the construction site of information and materials. 1997 and Miles. Consequently. both within and outside the project team. they are better able to plan their own work. Ballard 3-23 Last Planner ` . All else being equal. with confidence that improving reliability is beneficial to project performance. We have numerous instances from construction processes showing the benefits of increasing material and information flow reliability even within the job site itself (Ballard. but the current research needed is to establish more effective methods for production control in general and to extend production control techniques to design. When constructors can take action in advance of receiving design information that coordinates the flow of labor and equipment. et al. Subsequent research may seek to refine and quantify these causal relationships. and better planning yields better performance.specialists. and better matching of resources to tasks. material deliveries. and completion of prerequisite work. 1997). Even partial and limited improvements in work flow reliability have demonstrated schedule and cost improvements (Koskela et al. The impact of more reliable flow of design information on project cost and duration is much greater in the construction phase of projects than in design. 1998). less wasted effort and rework. Ballard and Howell. the project runs more smoothly and efficiently. with greater flow reliability should come more efficient production. 1996..

Roozenburg and Eeckels propose that technology and science pursue different goals through different processes or methodologies (Roozenburg and Eeckels. in whatever field. some epistemological assumptions lie behind any attempt to add to knowledge. 1995. 4. not about epistemology.” Both can be pursued methodically. Three issues will be addressed: 1) To what field of knowledge is this thesis proposing to contribute? 2) Difficulties associated with competing paradigms in the field. For both. The purpose of this introduction is to clarify epistemological assumptions. and using of artifacts-is a systematized form of action. 3) The research strategy and methods used in this thesis. Which conditions should these two different reasoning processes meet. meaning that the conclusions to which they lead are correct or true? The criterion for reliability of scientific reasoning is the truth of the resulting statements. so they can claim reliability. Making those assumptions explicit allows the reader to better understand and assess claims and inferences. However.1 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AS A FIELD OF STUDY The topic of this thesis is engineering management. making.CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4. 32-35).” Both processes involve reasoning. which is assumed to belong to the general field of technology rather than science. while “technology-the design.1 Introduction This thesis is about engineering management.1. certain rules have been developed. The criterion for reliability of technological reasoning is the effectiveness of the action Ballard 4-1 Last Planner . the observance of which is supposed to “…contribute to efficient performance of the activity involved. pp. Science pursues knowledge acquisition.

process, based on that reasoning. Of course we may pose a ‘scientific question’ about a technological claim: ‘Is it indeed true that the proposed action will be effective?’ That is precisely the type of question posed in this thesis. ‘Is it true that implementing a specific set of policies and techniques collectively called “the Last Planner system of production control” improves the reliability of work flow?’ Given this ‘scientific’ question about a technological matter, what methodological rules are appropriate? What kind of data is needed to answer the question and what kind of inferences can we expect to make from such data? Many engineering management theses pose claims about some aspect of engineering management action, use surveys to collect data regarding same, then apply statistical analyses to test the adequacy of their claim. This methodology works from a sample of a population to claims about the population itself by statistical generalization. ‘If 79% of a 151 member sample report that they include safety records in their prequalification of contractors, what generalization can I make regarding all members of the population that prequalifies contractors?’ Rules of statistical generalization exist for answering such questions. However, statistical generalization from sample to population is an appropriate methodology in the field of engineering management only if one is interested in testing claims about current behavior. If the objective is to introduce new policies and behaviors with the intent of improving engineering management practice, a different type of methodology is needed. The world of engineering management practice may well be void of practitioners following the proposed new policies and techniques, so there is no sample to take. The question is not ‘How many people employ the Last Planner system

Ballard

4-2

Last Planner

and with what effect?’ What’s needed is a type of experiment rather than a survey17. The relevant question has the form ‘Will the desired consequences result from taking the proposed action?’ What type of ‘experiment’ is needed to pursue the research questions: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan Complete? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes? As is said in the States, “experiment” is a loaded term.

Scholars differentiate between so-called ‘true’ experiments and quasi-experiments (Campbell and Stanley, 1966). Some propose that case studies be conceived as a type of experiment, having similar methodological rules (Yin, 1994). No position is taken here regarding these matters except that some type of experiment is the appropriate methodology for the type of research question posed as distinct from a survey of current practice. ‘Experiment’ is conceived in practical terms to mean acting in the world with an intended effect. As with all experiments, the researcher must be open to learning more or different things than expected. As with all experiments, generalization from findings is problematic. Experiments don’t prove conclusions in the sense of logical deduction even in the field of natural science. Experimental reasoning is a type of reductive reasoning from particular to general quite unlike either formal logical reasoning or statistical generalization. Everything depends on the specifics of given situations. What are the

17

Surveys may be used in conjunction with an experiment or a case study devoted to implementation of a policy. For example, one could survey participants for opinions regarding the effectiveness of the policy. The point here is that survey cannot be the principal or primary research strategy for conducting policy evaluation.

Ballard

4-3

Last Planner

relevant variables and to what extent can they be controlled? Some experiments in natural science can approximately isolate one (set of) variable(s) from others and so argue more persuasively that ‘things don’t burn in the absence of oxygen.’ However, even that extreme type of argument depends essentially on the cohesion and consistency of theories. As long as the phlogiston theory held sway, oxygen was invisible to the mind’s eye (Kuhn, 1962). Generalization from experiments is fundamentally a matter of telling a good story; i.e., having a good theory. 4.1.2 COMPETING ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS According to Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), theories emerge from paradigms, which are fundamental propositions and assumptions about the subject matter that tend to remain implicit except in periods when paradigms change. It could be argued that engineering management is currently in just such a period of paradigm shift. In such periods, communication becomes even more perilous than normal because the community of researchers and practitioners no longer share a common language and presuppositions. The research question posed in this thesis belongs to an emerging engineering management paradigm, in conflict with the prevailing paradigm. Consequently, care must be taken lest the change in language and presuppositions hinder the reader. That can best be done by making changes in language and presuppositions explicit. Recognizing that paradigm shifts are periods of intellectual conflict, it is not expected that all readers will accept the proposed changes. In the midst of a paradigm shift, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to clearly delineate the boundaries of the opposed camps. The conflict is itself producing that delineation, at the conclusion of which the vanguished disappears into the sands of time

Ballard

4-4

Last Planner

Once contracts are let. an effort is required to clarify ‘where all this is coming from. Closely related to the conversion/flow distinction is that between project and production management.. appropriate to any endeavour that is goal-driven and time-limited. p.’ The conflict in engineering management was presented in Chapter Two as an opposition between those who adopt the view of production (the design and making of physical artifacts) as transforming or converting inputs into outputs and those who add the flow and value views. From a pure conversion view. to projects. variability ‘officially’ appears only in the form of failure to meet contractual obligations.e.” (Hopp and Spearman. Manufacturing has taken the lead in the development of production theory. “…variability is not well understood in manufacturing…. where it would seem to be even more an issue. At first glance. project management concepts and techniques are employed in Ballard 4-5 Last Planner . i. the shift from the conversion to the flow and value views is enormously important. this hardly appears to belong in the same league as the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology—perhaps the most famous example of a paradigm shift. This is a highly abstract perspective. which is itself virtually invisible from the conversion-only view. Nonetheless. variability is managed primarily through the provision of schedule and cost contingencies at the global level of projects.and the victor rides forward toward its own inevitable yet incomprehensible future defeat. then to monitoring progress toward those objectives (control). Unfortunately. 1996. Nonetheless. yet according to manufacturing theorists. 311) One can only assume that variability is even less well understood in the AEC industry. but is neglected in the structuring of work flows and operations. A prime example is variability. Project management concepts and techniques are oriented to the determination of project objectives and the means for achieving them (planning).

it is necessary to determine the research topic.. to be in the province of the engineering or construction crafts rather than a matter for management. The questions driving this research are: 1) 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan Ballard 4-6 Last Planner . Management of production projects requires the use of production management concepts and techniques. improving control of design and construction processes on architectural/engineering/construction projects. The topic of this research is engineering management. errors. For such readers. This is the more unfortunate as many projects involve production. the research questions posed in this thesis may well appear either trivial or irrelevant. i. Is variability in processing times.attempts to manage production processes that take on project form without regard to the specific nature of the projects and production to be managed. and breakdowns visible to those comfortable with the project management/conversion paradigm? Such matters might be considered to belong to ‘mere’ production. question. which in turn are derivative from the conversion/flow/value views. more specifically.2 Research Design 4.2. 4. and purpose.e. designing and making things.1 RESEARCH QUESTION Prior to selecting a research strategy. arrival rates.

Some might worry about an involved researcher’s objectivity.reliability during design processes18? The purpose of the research is to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of this managerial policy and practice. i. i. Evaluation is a type of applied or action research (McNeill. concerned with technology in the broad sense.. understanding why what works and what does not. Indeed. descriptive.e. Evaluations typically pursue improvement of the subject policy or practice in addition to rating effectiveness against objectives. for which the (immediate) goal is rather to understand than to change the world. The conceptual model for technological research appears to have been drawn from the natural sciences. improving practice requires understanding what works and does not work. especially when the researcher is involved in the creation and implementation of the policies and practices being implemented and evaluated. fact finding research. and explanation. exploratory. On the other hand. Consequently. Simple rating is often made more difficult because of changes made midstream in the policy or practice being evaluated. explanatory. not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.e. Evaluation does not fit neatly within the classification of traditional purposes of enquiry. but subordinates those purposes to the overriding purpose of improving practice. Policy evaluation involves exploration. description. evaluation and improvement often blur together. the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering activities. it may simply be that technological research demands another concept and procedure than that of traditional. Opportunity for improvement seldom waits on the desire for an unambiguous definition of what is to be evaluated. and to as great an extent as possible.. the purpose of this 18 In this thesis. 1989). as is the case with this researcher and research. goal-oriented action. Nonetheless. Ballard 4-7 Last Planner .

the lack of quantitative data on flow reliability for the pre-test. The research strategies that could possibly lend themselves to investigation of this research question include true experiments. quasi-experiments. Ballard 4-8 Last Planner . post-test. However. and 2) our ability to generalize from the experimental results is limited by the possibility that those who choose to try the Last Planner method are somehow different from those who do not so choose. measuring flow reliability of the same group before and after implementation of the Last Planner system.2. survey. It has previously been argued in this chapter that a survey strategy is inappropriate for the question posed by this research. True experiments require establishing a control group that differs in no relevant way from the experimental group. in the form of interview results. At first glance.40).2 RESEARCH STRATEGIES The three traditional research strategies are experiment. A true experiment was not appropriate because of the difficulty of establishing a control group and lack of control over extraneous variables. 1993. 4. so pre-test quantitative data is not available. and so pushes the researcher to find a more effective research strategy. This approach has several difficulties: 1) Work flow reliability is not an explicit. p. could be handled by substituting subjective data. and case studies. The first difficulty.research includes determining the extent to which the Last Planner system is effective and why it is or is not effective. The second difficulty could be managed by conditioning and qualifying the inferences drawn from the experiment. it would seem to be possible to use a pre-test. and case study (Robson. single group design. measured objective of traditional production control systems. this is clearly an inferior solution.

Quasi-experiments are “…experiments without random assignment to treatment and comparison groups. and a change in theory or practice (production control) is proposed (Robson. Multiple case studies allow the researcher to pursue a progressive strategy. where true experiments are impossible or inappropriate.1 DATA COLLECTION Executing a research strategy requires methods for data collection and analysis. in this case. Case study is “…a strategy for doing research through empirical investigation of a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence” (Robson. Given the policy nature of the research question being posed. p.3. the context in which the study occurs. a multiple case study strategy seems appropriate. The key issue regarding quasi-experiments is what inferences can be drawn. especially for case studies. It is proposed that inferences be justified in terms of study design. but are nonetheless appropriate for a large range of inquiry.3 Research Methods 4. it still leaves us without pre-test quantitative data on flow reliability in design. is not by itself an adequate strategy for pursuing this research. from exploration of a question to more focused examination of trials. While this strategy responds to the difficulty of generalizability posed above. 4. cited in Robson. What research methods are available.169). p. how production is managed in design.” (Campbell and Stanley. 52). the research strategy to be Ballard 4-9 Last Planner . p. 1966. Case studies are an appropriate research strategy when there is little known about the topic of interest. for example. 98) They admittedly sacrifice some of the rigor of true experiments. and the pattern of results obtained (Cook and Campbell. and consequently. 1993. 1979).

Interviews or questionnaires were used in all cases to collect team member assessments.. 4. A variant of direct observation is participant observation. i. various forms of schedules. In all cases. Specific observational data was collected from participation in project coordination meetings and other events devoted to planning and controlling design and construction processes.3. validity. the researcher served as a consultant to the project team. involvement of the researcher in managerial decision making.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION McNeill (1989) suggests three key concepts: reliability. Records collected included meeting minutes and memos. and representativeness. actual completion dates. observational reporting by a researcher who is part of the group being observed. and reasons for failure to complete assignments on their due dates. which fit best with conditions such as accessibility to people and documents. “Validity refers to the problem of whether the data collected is a true picture of what is being studied. Interviews were also used to collect other participants’ observations of meetings and events relevant to project control at which the researcher was not present. time available. etc? Methods for data collection include direct observation. and documentary analysis.” Representativeness concerns whether the objects of study are typical of others. measurements were made and recorded of short-term assignments.e. both during the course of each project and at the conclusion of each. their due dates.pursued in this thesis? Of those available. interviews and questionnaires. All these methods of data collection are used in this research. and action item logs. the extent to which we can generalize. and consequently. In all cases. Reliability concerns the extent to which research can be repeated by others with the same results. Ballard 4-10 Last Planner . and consequently was in the role of participant observer rather than a neutral observer.

Since the Last Planner system primarily attempts to improve plan quality. attempts are made to control key variables of implementation and execution of the system. Generalizability from the cases is a question that cannot be completely answered. Was the assignment poorly defined or was the problem with the lack of effort or skill on the part of the designers or builders? Ballard 4-11 Last Planner .e. Another difficulty is that plan reliability is measured by PPC ('percent plan complete'. It is less a problem for action research because of its public nature and the availability of measurement data such as PPC (Percent Plan Complete). However. having demonstrated even on a single project that plan reliability can be improved is sufficient to establish system effectiveness. percentage of assignments completed). it is often difficult to differentiate between an execution and a quality failure. Nonetheless. Validity of findings is especially difficult in survey research because of the potential difference between what people say and what they do. Future work may be devoted to better understanding the conditions necessary for such success. success or failure in assignment completion may be a consequence either of the quality of the assignment or of its execution. policy implementations are made in the messy reality of organizations and social relations. i.. In addition. apart from unsound assignments. First of all. In the case of this research. but PPC does not directly measure plan quality. no more than it can for a limited number of laboratory experiments. unlike laboratory experiments.Reliability in action research is inevitably questionable because of the active role played by the researcher in generating the phenomena being studied. Few if any variables can be completely controlled. However. execution failures and therefore PPC may not vary with its effectiveness. it is recognized that control is partial and incomplete.

Failures from sizing or sequencing are more difficult to identify.3. is Ballard 4-12 Last Planner . it is virtually impossible for the researcher to prevent someone marking assignments completed in order to ‘make the worse appear better’. However.3 CASE STUDIES The research was done through a series of case studies. a decision between alternative designs. e. and assessing the soundness of assignments. It is often difficult to accurately determine reasons for failure. The later case studies incorporate efforts to improve plan failure analysis based on experiences in the previous cases. Similar difficulties beset improving the system. The best defense might be to convince those doing the marking that PPC is not a measure of individual but of system performance. The second case. Unsoundness of assignments is the easiest to determine because something is lacking that is needed to do the assignment properly. sequencing. For these various reasons.. The first case. etc. The researcher can partially guard against this problem by reviewing assignments for adequate definition. Individuals can be better or worse at defining. evaluating the impact of the Last Planner system on plan reliability is no straightforward matter. the Next Stage project. An assignment to “Produce as many piping drawings as you can by the end of the week” might be marked as completed. a stress calculation. 4. The primary improvement from that case was the addition of the constraints analysis process. PPC records of individual front line supervisors can be revealing of those capabilities.Yet a further difficulty is the ambiguity of assignment ‘completion’ when assignments have not been well defined. was an exploratory extension of the Last Planner system to the coordination of multiple trades on a construction project.g. that is not quite true. the CCSR project. sizing. Unfortunately. which occurs through understanding and preventing plan quality failures. a soils report.

shows the potential for improvement in work flow reliability from a more thorough and deliberate education and training of the project team. Case Four. the Old Chemistry Building Renovation project. Case Five is the Zeneca Project. and application of the latest thinking and techniques in the Last Planner system. Pacific Contracting.an exploratory case study on the extension of the Last Planner system to design production control. It may well reveal the limits on a speciality contractor implementing the Last Planner system unilaterally. to improve its work flow reliability. Case Three shows the efforts of a speciality contractor. one of several implementations of the Last Planner system undertaken by Barnes Construction with significant education and coaching provided to the participants. Ballard 4-13 Last Planner .

3.19 In addition to the Last Planner procedures and techniques previously developed. 4. 2. CCSR stood for Center for Clinical Services Research.CHAPTER FIVE: CASE ONE-CCSR PROJECT 5. then measure PPC and track reasons for noncompletion of weekly assignments. Collection of status input from subs before the scheduling meeting. CCSR was selected as a pilot project to explore feasibility and develop techniques. The specific research question was: How/Can plan reliability be improved during site construction on largely subcontracted projects? The research plan was to introduce the techniques listed below during weekly subcontractor coordination meetings. Detailed scheduling by phase20. Trying to select only tasks each week that are free of constraints. the intent was to do the following: 1. 19 The author introduced the system to the project and visited periodically during the course of the subsequent three month pilot.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation The CCSR Project was a laboratory building for Stanford University for which the general contractor was Linbeck Construction. Intensive subcontractor involvement in phase scheduling. Under the author's direction. Abraham Katz. Ballard 5-1 Last Planner . a Stanford graduate student. the Last Planner system of production control had been implemented primarily by contractors doing direct production work. Prior to CCSR. The author is a consulting professor at Stanford and also at the University of California at Berkeley. assisted the project superintendent with scheduling and documentation as part of an independent study performed for Professor Martin Fischer. There was some question about how to apply Last Planner to subcontracted projects and how effective that application might be.

so the general contractor (GC) could revise the short interval schedule. prerequisite work.2 PPC and Reasons Several kinds of data were collected: PPC and reasons. and the observations of the researcher.5. which in their case covered a 6 week lookahead period. and labor. An open-ended.1) was established that specified who was to do what during each week as regards planning and control. For example. contract. "other" category was also provided to capture less common constraints. shown in Table 5. Measuring PPC. the first phase-during which this research was conducted-was from Ballard 5-2 Last Planner .e. A weekly planning cycle (Table 5. The intention was to focus attention and action on making scheduled tasks ready by removing their constraints. during the wettest season in the San Francisco area in recorded history. subcontractors were to status their tasks scheduled for the next 3 weeks by noon Monday. PPC and reasons data was collected each week from 12/24/97 through 3/3/98. For example. nonetheless rain was 20 A phase was conceived in terms of a relatively independent facility system. Common constraints on the readiness of scheduled tasks for assignment and execution were included on the form.2. 5. auxiliary documents such as phase and master schedules. materials. such as type of fill material and drainage systems. Status reporting consisted of completing a constraints analysis form. i. equipment. Although the project had taken weatherizing precautions to minimize weather-related delays. space.. identifying and acting on reasons. which shows selected scheduled tasks for three of the subcontractors on the project. submittals. design.

* Subs status tasks for these constraints: contract. GC and subs meet to: 1) status this week's plan. Wed-Tu All perform work on the current weekly work plan and expedite removal of constraints on future weeks' work plans * The short interval schedule covers the construction tasks required to achieve a schedule milestone (e. matls. CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle Table 5. etc). The goal is 100% plan reliability for the next three weeks. Tu P. and 2) finalize the lookahead schedule Guidelines: 1) Schedule for next week (Wed thru Tu) only tasks that have no constraints or have only constraints you know can be removed in time. design.M. progress on current week's plan. changes in objectives or design Friday Noon GC produces a preliminary short interval schedule & gives to subs and A/E Mon A. responses to RFIs. A/E statuses tasks by specifying the information or decision needed. The team develops a detailed schedule for each phase of the job at least 4 weeks before starting that phase. A/E and subs status tasks in next 3 weeks and give back to GC Mon P. updated delivery schedules (rebar. identify reasons for failing to complete planned tasks. space. are you confident they will be removed in time? 2) If constraints are not in your control.M. *Both subs and A/E are answering the questions: 1) If constraints are in your control. GC produces and distributes plan reliability charts and final short interval schedule * The plan reliability charts measure how well the team is achieving its goal of scheduling three weeks ahead only tasks that can be completed.g. what help do you need from others? * GC reviews the phase schedule and master schedule for needed adjustment. submittals. e.1 Friday A.M.by far the most frequently cited reason for failing to completed assignments on weekly work plans Table 5. other. slab-on-grade by 2/28/97) and the design and supplier tasks providing needed information and materials. The phase schedule then becomes the control schedule for short interval scheduling each week. prerequisite work. tools & eqpt. 2) Schedule in the 2nd and 3rd weeks only tasks you are confident can be made ready in time. Ballard 5-3 Last Planner . I.g. GC collects information needed to produce the short interval schedule. labor.M. and agree on actions to prevent repetition.2 CCSR Weekly Planning Cycle excavation to slab-on-grade. GC revises short interval schedule Tu A. The idea is that productivity will be higher when schedules are reliable. and completing all tasks scheduled up to three weeks ahead.M.

ranging from an initial measurement of 56% during the week of 12/24/97 to 70% in the week of 3/3/98.3/4/98 Walls Rebar Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98 Dowels Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98 Between A and H Dowels.Space Equip Labor Other mitta rial Requi ment ls site Tunnel Lobby .1. Rain was cited as the reason for 18 plan failures (see Figure 5. I D 950 1040 1220 630 344 1154 Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre.Table 5.2 Wills II.5 and 8 3/6/98 Line 4 Wall and Line C Wall Rebar Large Interior 3/9/98 Wall Line J and H. and Footings E & G Dowels Between 4. 6-P Activity ID Cupertino Electric Activity 402 Inspection Underground Electrical N-W S-W Quadrant Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre.8 Rebar Small Interior 3/9/98 Wall Rebar Lines 6-K.Space Equip Labor Other mitta rial Requi ment ls site 3/4/98 3/5/98 CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form PPC was measured as shown in Figure 5. Other Ballard 5-4 Last Planner . and 6-M.2) and was a contributing reason to even more.

frequently cited reasons were lack of prerequisite work (14). which compared favorably to work flow reliability achieved through previous application of the Last Planner system to projects which were not subcontracted.3.1 90% 80% 70% 60% % Completed 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 Week 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98 CCSR-Weekly PPC 21 Ballard et al. availability or quality of design information (8). 1997 Ballard 5-5 Last Planner . with a mean PPC for the research period of 71% (149 of 211 assignments completed). Removing rain as a reason. Ballard and Howell. 1996.. and submittals (6). weekly PPC would have been as shown in Figure 5.21 Figure 5.

3 Week PPC Tasks Completed Tasks Planned Rain Pre-Requisite Design Submittal Other Space Equipment Labor Materials Contract 1 2 1 1 1 12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98 56% 5 9 86% 6 7 57% 8 14 67% 10 15 73% 11 15 75% 18 24 50% 7 14 53% 10 19 74% 23 31 44% 19 43 70% 14 20 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 7 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 2 18 14 8 6 2 2 1 1 2 4 3 2 2 1 0 CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data Figure 5.2 25 20 Number Of Ocurrences 15 10 5 0 Rain Pre-Requisite Design Submittal Other Reason Space Equipment Labor Materials Contract CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion Ballard 5-6 Last Planner .Table 5.

22 23 This distinction was introduced into the Last Planner system in Ballard (1994). Plan Failures would have amounted to 28 of 38. 28 were determined to have resulted from some defect in planning. our fate is in our own hands as regards planning and work flow. In even extreme weather conditions. The 18 failures caused by rain were categorized as execution failures. Ballard 5-7 2/ Last Planner . while 29 were attributed to some defect in execution.Figure 5. Of the 57 total failures23. Disregarding rain. further evidence that to a substantial degree. fully half of noncompletions resulted from poor planning. Their inclusion would add 4 noncompletions to the total.3 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 97 97 98 98 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 4/ 1/ 6/ 3/ /9 14 18 25 10 17 /2 /3 1/ 2/ 24 3/ 3/ 98 8 8 8 8 8 8 Weekly PPC Mean PPC 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 12 12 CCSR-PPC without rain As shown in Table 5. or 74%. Note the absence of detailed information for failures in the week of 12/24/97.4. reasons for plan failure were categorized as either an Execution Failure or a Plan Failure22.

Table 5.Elevator Wall Forms Item 43 . & 4 Line Excavation A.A.Elevator Pour Up to Tunnel Level Item 43 .Access Panel Week 1/18 Activity 210 .Form South East Quadrant Item 29 .Interior Wall Rebar Submittals A.Underground Plumbing Item 13 .East Wall Forms Item 32 .C.Sump Pit Lid Form Week 1/6 Activity item 3 . & 4 Line Rebar Week 1/25 Activity Reason Other: Low Priority Type Of Failure Plan Reason Rain Design: RFI Pre-Requisite: Not Identified Equipment: Backhoe Equipment: Backhoe No Excavation Type Of Failure Execution Execution Plan Execution Execution Plan Reason Floor Drain Submittals Shop Drawings Waiting Rebar Fabrication Waiting On Excavation Submittal Type Of Failure Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Reason Not Back Not Back Productivity/Rain No Excavation Type Of Failure Plan Plan Execution Plan Reason Type Of Failure Ballard 5-8 Last Planner .Design Change Rebar Submittals 270 .Elevator 1&2 SOG Pour Item 44 .2&3 Line Excavation Item 44 .2&3 Line Rebar Week 1/14 Activity item 26 .4 Week 12/31 Activity item 6 .C.C & 4 Line Excavation Item 45 .Rebar J Line Item 7 .

Q.Excavate Line F and 7 (MidWest) Interior Wall Forms N. Week 2/10 Activity Reason Plumbing between lines J Rain &M Plumbing Line 6.5 Rain Small Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Rain Small Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Double Up Rain Large Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Rain Large Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Double Up Rain Small Wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Rain Line L wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Rain E & G Line Rebar from 2 Eleveator Jack Drilling / to 5 Rain Type Of Failure Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Reason Rain Rain Rain Rain Rain Waiting For Inspection Rain Type Of Failure Execution Execution Execution Execution Execution Plan Execution Ballard 5-9 Last Planner .L Lines Rebar Installation Reveals Location RFI Line 7 (Cupertino) Tunnel Piping Submittal Rain Rain Rain Waiting On Architect Answer Incomplete Approval Execution Execution Execution Plan Plan Plan Week 2/3 Activity Excavate F Line Backfill Sump pit Template Footings A and 4 Line Electrical Conduit Elevator 5 Small and Large Walls Single Form Wall Double up @ Tunnel Lobby Backfill N-E/S-E Quad.

5 Excavation After 6 & 7 Line Concrete Small Interior Wall Forms Design Change Small Walls Double Up Design Change Small Walls Rebar Design Change Perimeter Wall Line 2 Design Change Rebar Footings 6 & 7 Rebar Rain Week 2/24 Activity Planter Excavation Interior Small Walls Tunnel lobby SOG Line L Wall Line J Footing Wall Line 2 From A-D Reason Space Rebar Change/Permit Sequence Change Rebar Change/Permit Rain Man Power Type Of Failure Plan Plan Plan Plan Execution Plan Week 3/3 Type Of Failure Activity Reason Footings E&G Excavation Space For Crane Plan Line J Concrete Rain Execution Footings 6&7 Concrete Rain Execution Court Yard Planter Crane Reach Plan Small Interior Walls Man Power Plan Pipe Ties In @ Tunne Waiting On Stanford Info Plan CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized) 5. They were selected based on traditional criteria such as financial soundness and bid price.Week 2/17 Activity Elevator Wal Backfill Line J Excavation Reason Type Of Failure Execution Execution Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Execution Rain Backfill Plumbing/Rain/Mud Line 6. Subcontractor personnel first learned about the system and the expectations regarding their roles and Ballard 5-10 Last Planner .3 Observations Subcontractors were not selected based on their understanding or willingness to participate in the Last Planner production control system.

Not surprisingly. Consequently. Analysis of constraints was a key element introduced into the Last Planner system on CCSR. in part because of the stage of design completion and the fact that the production architect/engineer was on a lump sum contract and concerned lest they run out of money before they ran out of work. and specifically better able to provide status information regarding constraints such as submittals. fabrication. There was also efforts made to involve the architect and design engineers on the project. perhaps in large part because there is no tradition in our industry for such activities. Shortly after introducing the system. Efforts to collect constraints information from subcontractors prior to the coordination meeting were mostly unsuccessful. and deliveries. Subcontractor project managers were invited to attend the weekly meetings and were better able to understand what was going on.responsibilities within it after coming to the site. Ballard 5-11 Last Planner . and also to have devoted more time and effort to education and training. much of meeting time was dedicated to data collection rather than planning and problem solving. Even so. it became apparent that more active involvement of others besides the site foremen was needed. Nonetheless. those efforts failed. it would have been preferable both to incorporate participation in the production control system in the selection criteria and subcontracts. design issues. some were more capable and enthusiastic about participating than others. Unfortunately. the project superintendent continued to use the Last Planner system and reported that eventually all foremen were participating and that they began to hold each other accountable for keeping their weekly work plan commitments.

Ballard 5-12 Last Planner . and designers. q Incorporate reasons identification. q Use team planning techniques to produce schedules for each phase of work. Make sure this happens so meeting time can be used for planning and problem solving as opposed to data collection.5. preferably from the beginning of design. analysis. and corrective action into weekly coordinating meetings. there is a danger that incompletions become accepted as unavoidable. q Involve owner. with participation by foremen. architect. superintendents. Select subcontractors for their ability and willingness to participate in the production control system. q Send to subcontractor project managers by email or fax each week constraint reports with the next 5-6 weeks scheduled activities listed and ask them to status their activities and report back.4 Learnings Learnings for future projects included: q q Incorporate production control requirements into subcontracts. Otherwise. and engineers in the production control process.

accommodating Broadway shows and musical entertainment with amplified sound. 1998 in Houston. Theatrical/Interiors. specifically including the Last Planner method of production control.CHAPTER SIX: CASE 2-NEXT STAGE PROJECT 6. and construction contractors were selected based on qualifications and willingness to participate in the project. In the Kickoff Meeting. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection.1 Description of the Project and Last Planner Implementation Next Stage Development was created to design. and 2) collectively producing a “value stream” (Womack and Jones’ [1996] term for the flow diagram of a production process that produces value for the stakeholders in the process). corresponding roughly to the facility systems: Site/Civil. The general contractor and equity participant in Next Stage Development is Linbeck Construction.000 seat enclosed amphitheaters in various U. a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute. 1997. Next Stage’s management chose to implement elements of “lean thinking” in the design and construction of its facilities. and Ballard 6-1 Last Planner . Structural. Key outcomes of the meeting were 1) forming the fifty plus individuals and multiple companies into a team. The intent was to create an All-Star team by selecting the very best. Its first project was the Texas Showplace. Texas and cofacilitated by the author. which was cofounded by the author and Greg Howell in August. build. A Kickoff Meeting was held for the production team May 19-21. cities. fabricators. Texas.S. This author's report on the Kickoff Meeting is included in Appendix A. design consultants. engineering firms. Architect. located in Dallas. and operate a series of 7. the participants were divided into a number of different teams. Enclosure/ Architectural.

The design process was managed primarily through biweekly teleconference (Appendix B). after roughly the middle of August.. Ballard 6-2 Last Planner .2. These teams remained intact as the administrative units for production of the design. However. Other Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion 6. the design process continued. Tasks needing completion within the next two week period were logged as Action Items (Appendix C) . delays in arranging equity financing and performance commitments caused the construction start and end date to slip ever further out.Project Support. until the project was finally suspended.1 1. Priority change 5.1) and a new due date was provided. Table 6.2 Data 6. 1998. with responsibility and due date assigned. Tasks needing completion beyond the next two week period were logged as Issues (Appendix D). Project changes 10.1 PPC AND REASONS The percentage of action items completed was tracked and published biweekly. initially with a target completion date of 11/15/99. Design decisions were recorded in a Design Decisions Log (Appendix E). Conflicting demands 8. When action items were not completed as scheduled. Lack of decision 2. Insufficient time 6. Lack of prerequisites 3. Lack of resources 4. After the Kickoff Meeting. Acts of God or the Devil 9. Late start 7. reasons were assigned from a standard list (Table 6.

calculated by averaging the previous four weeks data. which amounts to 54%. PPC . the four week moving average was 55%.1 represent the aggregate average completion percentage for all teams for each two week planning periods.NextStage™ Texas ShowPlace Planning Percent Complete for Preconstruction Meetings Week PPC Tasks Completed Tasks Planned 7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98 46% 28 61 50% 33 66 63% 48 76 71% 37 52 57% 29 51 61% 36 59 68% 26 38 47% 20 43 54% 26 48 54% 20 37 Next Stage-PPC Data The number of tasks or action items completed was divided by the number planned each two week period and a percentage calculated. For example. The columns in Figure 6. In the two week period beginning 11/4/98. of which 20 were completed. winding up around 55%. Ballard 6-3 Last Planner . 37 action items were assigned.Table 6. Subsequently. In addition.2 4 week moving 57% 60% 63% 64% 58% 57% 55% ave. PPC rose and fell in a generally downward trend. PPC rose from an initial measurement of 46% to above 70% in the 4th two week planning period. Through 11/4/98. a four week moving average was calculated in order to smooth the data and hopefully reveal trends. perhaps connected with the end date slipping out.

e. Ballard 6-4 Last Planner . It is apparent that three categories dominate. insufficient time. so do not facilitate corrective action. and conflicting demands..1 Percent of Plan Completed 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 Week 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98 % Completed Next Stage PPC Data There was considerable variation between teams. i. such categories reveal little about root causes. in that order. PPC of the various teams was as follows: Site/Civil Structural Enclosure/Architectural 78% 35% 62% Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection 55% Theatrical/Interiors Project Support 52% 85% Table 6. Through 9/9/98.3 exhibits the reasons categories used on the project and the frequency of reason by category each week of the data collection period. Unfortunately. lack of prerequisite work.Figure 6.

2.3 Reasons/ 7/1/ 7/15/ 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/ 10/21/9 11/4/9 12/2/9 All Date 98 98 98 8 8 8 Wee ks Decision 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 17 Prerequisit 7 16 8 2 7 10 3 5 6 4 68 es Resources 1 2 0 3 Priority 3 4 6 1 1 15 Change Insufficient 5 6 1 6 6 10 8 10 6 4 62 Time Late start 4 1 1 1 1 8 Conflicting 7 7 3 1 7 2 4 6 5 42 Demands Acts of God 3 0 3 Project 0 1 1 Changes Other 2 1 3 Next Stage-Reasons 6. Generally. why did Site/Civil accept #1 (were they sure they had the capacity to take on this additional task?) or #2 Ballard 6-5 Last Planner .2 OBSERVATIONS (See Appendices A and B for a report on the Kickoff meeting and the author’s notes on project teleconferences. For example. This sample also raised significant questions about adherence to quality requirements for assignments. who had responsibility for what. 1998. Presenting reasons were often quite distant from root causes and frequently the failing party did not control the root cause. actual soil conditions.3 FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS In October. Review of Site/Civil’s analyses revealed that failure to understand criteria for successful completion of assignments was the most common cause. failures were caused by not understanding something critically important.Table 6. applicable codes for drainage. City requirements for traffic analysis.2. the Site/Civil team agreed to select five plan failures and analyze them to root causes by asking "Why?" up to five times in succession.) 6.

” 5 why’s revealed that the required time was underestimated for collecting the information needed because the City’s requirements for traffic analysis were different and greater than had been assumed. Failure #3: Failed to complete Road “D” plan to support easement and operating items. Why did they refuse to accept our Ballard 6-6 Last Planner . i. Reason provided: conflicting demands—“I was overwhelmed during this period. Reason provided: prerequisite work and insufficient time. The root cause was the same as for #1. Failure #4: Failed to make an engineering determination from 3 alternative pavement designs provided. Reason provided: prerequisite work.(why did they think Mechanical would give them the information they needed in time for Civil to do its work?)? Failure #1: Failed to transmit site plan package to the general contractor as promised. then discovered that City codes required additional collection points.. Civil is waiting on Mechanical to provide data on these additional collection points. Failure #2: Failed to revise and submit site drainage for revised commissary roof drainage. Reason provided: prerequisite work.e. “This item was not anticipated. failure to understand City requirements for traffic analysis.. inverts. Why was it not anticipated? The City refused to accept our pavement design. The mechanical contractor originally provided drainage data on pipe sizes. etc.

The high percentage of plan failures due to conflicting demands appears to be supportive of this claim. Civil could have refused to accept its action item until receipt of their input. Low PPC was attributed by some members of the management team to the lack of a construction start date. “Prerequisite design work involved the determination of routing and service options.” Failure to specify who was to do what prevented requesting a specific commitment from TU Electric. Reason provided: prerequisite work. We also are investigating other sources for dirt. Failure #5: Failed to determine/coordinate location of easements after final design by Texas Utilities. and the consequent use by suppliers of resources on more urgent projects. There were delays on the part of TU Electric due to the absence of key people. Why was time insufficient? We neglected to plan for the time required to mobilize soils testing. Civil might have been informed when key people were absent. this reasons analysis exercise and observation of teleconferences suggests that contributing causes were failure to apply quality criteria to Ballard 6-7 Last Planner . The lack of prerequisite design work referred to the soil borings in the borrow site. If TU Electric had committed. However.” The root cause was assuming soil conditions would be the same.pavement design? Soil conditions were different from past projects. If TU Electric refused to make that commitment. A process flow diagram might have revealed the significance of that assumption. There was confusion over who was responsible.

Seats can either be mounted on the floor or riser- Ballard 6-8 Last Planner . Some of these constraints and conditions of her problem will not change. 6. the designer must know where other objects are located in the space. and operating characteristics of end-points. This raises the question of the type of control appropriate to generative processes like design. material compositions. 1997). Let us first consider more closely the nature of the design process. the final piping layout will emerge from a process of negotiation and adjustment. An example from the Next Stage case illustrates the point. Consider the task of producing a piping isometric drawing versus the task of doing a piping layout for a given area. which cannot be determined in advance. Some may well change in response to her difficulty achieving a satisfactory solution. The design team was faced with selecting the theater seats. dimensions.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process Control 'Making' has the job of conforming to requirements. In fact. Consequently. In order to do the layout. Consequently.assignments and failure to learn from plan failures through analysis and action on reasons. If there were complete predictability of design's output. design would generate no value. She must know locations. the criteria are far from straightforward or simple. variability plays a different role in design as opposed to construction (Reinertsen. which might appear at first glance to be a fairly simple problem of applying criteria derivative from the general level of 'quality' desired in the facility balanced against the purchase price of the seats. Design produces those requirements.

Product design decisions can impact the entire range of 'ilties': buildability. which can either go through the floor or risers. so parts have the logic of part to whole. as in a good conversation from which everyone learns (See Conklin and Weil's "Wicked Problems" for another presentation of this idea.. In their Soft Systems Methodology. Checkland and Scholes offer the same critique of 'hard' systems thinking as applied to action research. such thinking failed because it assumed that objectives were defined and the task was simply to determine how to achieve those objectives. operability. potentially conflicting properties. Ballard 6-9 Last Planner . Overly 'rationalistic' models of problem solving processes are inappropriate for the design process.mounted.e. which in turn constrains choices regarding the return air plenum. That choice in turn impacts cleaning time and cost: how quickly can they set up for the next show? As it happens. i. Rather than conceiving the project process to consist of determining design criteria then applying those criteria in the production of the design. etc.g. e. which can change the amount and type of smoke to be removed.. Components such as chairs may not be offered in all varieties. maintainability. chairs come with different types of upholstery. such chairs only come with a certain type of upholstery that would overload current plans for smoke removal. delay in selecting chairs delayed final determination of structural geometry. Everything's connected to everything. etc. etc. We are designing one whole..). which rather oscillates between criteria and alternatives. which in turn delayed completion of the 3D model of the structure. although we might prefer a riser-mounted chair. design should be conceived as a value generating process dedicated to the progressive determination of both ends and means. the choice between them being interdependent with the structural pads for the seats. In this case.

the Last Planner system.Specialization is essential for successful design. one that facilitates value generation and information flow among specialists. which is equivalent to saying that Last Planner was 44% more effective than traditional practice. et al. Reinertsen. No one can understand in detail all the different types of criteria. Plus: -attempted to select only assignments needed to release other work -measured and communicated PPC and reasons 24 See Lloyd. Ballard 6-10 Last Planner . and 7 on a scale of 1 to 7. 6. constraints. 1997). and alternatives that might be considered.. The four rated Last Planner effectiveness relative to traditional forms of project control 5. What is needed is a production control system that explodes tasks near in time to their performance. 5. examination of actual practice on the project suggests tremendous opportunity for further improvement. 1997 for the tendency to see one's task in terms of one's 'product' rather than in terms of participating in an iterative.. controls based on the model of afterthe-fact detection of negative variances inevitably focus entirely on controlling time and cost.e. evolving process. one that counteracts the tendency to suboptimization by explicitly focusing common attention on design criteria. Specialists are often advocates for the priority of specific criteria! Given this value generating nature of design. i. However. interactive.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation Four Next Stage project managers evaluated implementation and effectiveness of the Last Planner system in response to a short survey produced by the author. However. leaving design quality as the dependent variable (p.199. 6. often without sufficient understanding of what else is important24. specialists tend toward suboptimization because they become advocates for what they understand to be important.

i. Work selection was tested against the ‘pull’ requirement by asking why it was needed to be done now. work flow control. and a learning process. or implementation do you suggest for future projects? Ballard 6-11 Last Planner . either during or between teleconferences.. no analysis of reasons was done. it appeared that assignments were accepted with the implicit commitment to do one’s best rather than an explicit commitment to complete based on knowledge of the execution process.Minus: -minimal preparation of participants -no work flow control and make ready process -poor definition of assignments -no action on reasons Each action item was determined completed or incomplete. the Next Stage experience was valuable for its contributions to learning and further development of the Last Planner System. However. in the following response to the author's survey question: What improvements in LPS (Last Planner System) objectives. understanding of relevant criteria. and allocation of necessary resources. Much has been learned and developed since the Next Stage case. Opportunities and needs for the future are well summarized by Ed Beck. the interdependence of assignments was often not understood.e. Frequently. and either did not implement or did not implement completely the elements of the Last Planner system. Nonetheless. but rarely were assignments rejected for unsoundness or size. There was also no apparent attempt to act on the reasons that were identified. In summary. identification of needed informational inputs. production unit control. Linbeck project manager. Next Stage did not fully change its production control system from the traditional. procedures. consequently. Assignments were not systematically exploded into an operations level of detail and. and reasons were selected from the list of categories.

. the directives or criteria to which Ballard 6-12 Last Planner .q q q q q q q q q q q q Client buy-in at the user level Complete orientation of all participants A simpler value stream A more systematic format A better list of reasons to categorize planning failures Utilization of the 5 why's Utilization of the 6 week lookahead A more expeditious way to meet and create a weekly plan Periodic revisiting of the value stream Publishing graphs and reasons and answers to questions to all A tune-up meeting at strategic times along the course of the project Periodic assessment comparing what is happening versus what normally happens. specify the process to be used to complete an assignment. i. 6.e. -make sure project management understands the production control system and its objectives -provide additional training to participants -include ‘puller’ on action item log -explode scheduled activities using the Activity Definition Model.5 Learnings The Next Stage case study reinforced the need to improve plan reliability in design processes and also suggested improvements to the production control system required to achieve better plan reliability.

(This seems especially important for design. which consists of: analyze reasons to actionable causes. and the resources necessary to do the work.it must conform. assign or take corrective action. -establish a lookahead window with screening criteria for advancement -track the status of assignments as they move through the lookahead window -adopt a sizing criterion for assignments that consistently demands less output from production units than their estimated capacity to accommodate variability in capacity. Other studies suggest that routinely 20% of capacity is used to do needed but previously undefined work each week. and record results. Ballard 6-13 Last Planner . the prerequisite work needed from others.) -improve the categorization of reasons and reasons analysis to facilitate implementation of the learning process.

fall more particularly on the specialist. specialists work for many general contractors. The author began working with the company in 1995 as a consultant. the specialist has a different role in the production system than does a general contractor or construction manager. whether design or construction. Implementation of the Last Planner system by a speciality contractor is important for several reasons. Drawing on a manufacturing analogy.e. not all of whom may endorse the Last Planner principles and objectives. i. became an LCI partner.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation Pacific Contracting is a speciality contractor primarily involved in design and installation of building envelopes. but the production itself is done by specialists.CHAPTER SEVEN: CASE THREE-PACIFIC CONTRACTING 7. The latter's role is primarily to coordinate production. Secondly. such as matching load to capacity. cladding and roofing systems. even if they are directly employed by the general contractor. Subsequently. Todd Zabelle.. Many of the functions of the Last Planner system. Pacific Contracting became a charter member of the Lean Construction Institute and its President. Ballard 7-1 Last Planner . First of all. the speciality contractor is like a job shop. than on the coordinator of design or construction processes. while the coordinator is like an assembler.

with finally another upward trend through the period of data collection. Figure 7.1. ending in midOctober. followed by a brief period of decline. then a decline followed by another upward trend through Week 28. As can be seen from Figure 7.7. The data collection period extended for 41 weeks.1 10 0% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 % 1 ee 0 k W 12 ee k W 14 ee k W 16 ee k W 18 ee k W 20 ee k W 22 ee k W 24 ee k W 26 ee k W 28 ee k W 30 ee k W 32 ee k W 34 ee k W 36 ee k W 38 ee k 40 W 4 6 k ee ee W k ee k W ee 8 k W W PercentPla C m lete90%43%67% n op 4W e M v Average e k o ing Pacific Contracting-PPC 25 The LCI research on improving PPC continued beyond the data collection period reported in this dissertation. using the latest tools and techniques developed by the author. an LCI research project. 199925. participated in the effort to discover how to improve PPC to and above the 90% level. Ballard 7-2 Last Planner . there appears to have been a period of improvement through Week 19.2 PPC and Reasons Pacific Contracting.

1. From Week 19 through 23.A possible explanation for the decline is that a very small number of assignments were actually made ready in time to be placed on weekly work plans. so that a single noncompletion registered as a relatively large percentage of failures.1 Week Percent Plan Complete 4 Week Moving Average Activities Scheduled Activities Complete Total Incompletions Activities Scheduled Client Engineering Materials Equipment Craft Pre-Requisite Subcontractor Plan Weather 1 90% 0% 10 9 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 43% 0% 7 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 67% 0% 9 6 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 50% 65% 8 4 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 6 7 8 67% 100% 69% 100% 58% 70% 71% 79% 12 8 13 5 8 8 9 5 4 0 4 0 12 8 13 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ballard 7-3 Last Planner . from Week 17 through Week 23. As shown in Table 7. This likely impact of lookahead planning on PPC adds impetus to the need for future development of metrics specifically for the lookahead process and its improvement. Table 7. at least one weekly assignment was not completed. limiting PPC to a maximum of 75%. no more than 4 tasks were assigned on weekly work plans.

Week Percent Plan Complete 4 Week Moving Average Activities Scheduled Activities Complete Total Incompletions Activities Scheduled Client Engineering Materials Equipment Craft Pre-Requisite Subcontractor Plan Weather Week Percent Plan Complete 4 Week Moving Average Activities Scheduled Activities Complete Total Incompletions Activities Scheduled Client Engineering Materials Equipment Craft Pre-Requisite Subcontractor Plan Weather Week Percent Plan Complete 4 Week Moving Average Activities Scheduled Activities Complete Total Incompletions Activities Scheduled Client Engineering Materials Equipment Craft Pre-Requisite Subcontractor Plan Weather 9 80% 83% 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 17 100% 90% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 40% 64% 5 2 3 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 88% 81% 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 100% 94% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 67% 64% 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 100% 88% 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 25% 69% 4 1 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 27 89% 70% 9 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 63% 79% 8 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 20 50% 55% 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 13 83% 80% 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 50% 50% 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 14 83% 78% 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 22 67% 47% 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 57% 75% 7 4 3 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 100% 82% 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 75% 60% 4 3 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 75% 68% 4 3 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 83% 88% 6 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 70% 67% 10 7 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 32 50% 56% 4 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 29 100% 33% 77% 80% 5 3 5 1 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ballard 7-4 Last Planner .

You either have the engineering for a task complete or you don't. structural collapse or failure.Week 33 Percent Plan Complete80% 4 Week Moving Average 65% Activities Scheduled 5 Activities Complete 4 Total Incompletions 1 Activities Scheduled 5 Client 0 Engineering 0 Materials 0 Equipment 0 Craft 0 Pre-Requisite 0 Subcontractor 0 Plan 1 Weather 0 34 100% 73% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 86% 78% 7 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 36 90% 88% 10 9 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 100% 91% 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 71% 86% 7 5 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 39 79% 83% 14 11 3 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 40 82% 81% 11 9 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 41 92% 82% 12 11 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons Pacific Contracting categorized reasons for noncompletion of weekly assignments in terms of Client. Engineering cannot be a reason. Plan. provided the following comments regarding their reasons categories: "As I started to write our definition of engineering as a reason. Bret Zabelle. Materials. Prerequisite Work. Ballard 7-5 Last Planner . The only instances I can think of for engineering is miscalculation of quantities. If you don't have the engineering complete. "Craft:When all the resources are available to perform a task on the WWP (weekly work plan) and the craft workers do something different. Equipment. Also refers to craft absenteeism. Subcontractor. I had a moment of clarity. Engineering. Operations Manager for Pacific Contracting. Craft. or Weather. the task should not be scheduled on a work plan.

Ballard 7-6 Last Planner ." Considering reasons for failures to complete weekly assignments. it should be remembered that matters might be just the opposite as regards the lookahead process which makes ready assignments for selection in weekly work plans. Pacific Contracting's own disregard of assignment quality criteria or inability to understand how the planned work was to be done.1 and also graphically in Figure 7. Sometimes we schedule tasks that are more complex than we thought."Subcontractor: This is similar to engineering as a reason. Altogether. we should not put our activity on the WWP until it is available. tools and workers are not available. we are reminded of the importance of measuring and analyzing lookahead process performance. much the most common reason was "Plan". our own subcontractors or other contractors have not completed prerequisite activities. the vast majority of weekly work plan failures were well within the control of Pacific Contracting. If we have a subcontractor who did not complete prerequisite work in front of us.2. materials. They promise components will be fabricated by a certain date and fail. Again. Also refers to fabricators. as shown in Table 7. "Plan: Planning failures occur when we do stupid things like schedule activities if the engineering is not complete. However. and to anticipate all the steps and resources necessary. The next most frequent reason was errors of some sort in execution of assignments by Pacific Contracting's craft supervisors and workers.

Pacific Contracting did not work with a single general contractor that embraced the Last Planner system. Ballard 7-7 Last Planner .3 Observations During the period of data collection. The consequent lack of resource utilization is a waste the recovery of which could contribute to faster or more projects. On the other side of the matter. they appear-based on this one instance-to be able to achieve a relatively high level of plan reliability.2 Weather Client Engineering Materials Plan Equipment Craft Subcontractor Pre-Requisite Pacific Contracting-Reasons 7. speciality contractor efforts to avoid that waste seem inevitably to decrease both plan reliability and progress of projects as seen from the perspective of project coordinators.Figure 7. Once work is available to speciality contractors. limited mostly by their own ability to plan and execute. Specialists appear to have tremendous difficulty achieving high levels of PPC when not working on 'last planner' projects.

7.4 Learnings
For speciality contractors to increase plan reliability to the 90% level and above requires that the coordinators of the projects on which they work embrace the Last Planner system's objectives and especially the lookahead process, which is dedicated to making tasks ready for assignment and to balancing load and capacity. For their part, speciality contractors must adhere to the discipline of Last Planner rules and perhaps also use the technique of first run studies26 more consistently and well.

26

First run studies are extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional team including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed by methodical study, redesign of the operation, and retrial until a standard is established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. First run studies follow the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, made popular by W. Edwards Deming.

Ballard

7-8

Last Planner

CHAPTER EIGHT: CASE FOUR-OLD CHEMISTRY BUILDING RENOVATION PROJECT

8.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation
Linbeck Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, was the general contractor for Rice University's Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project in Houston, Texas. Linbeck brought John Pasch, Rice's facilities manager, to the Neenan Company's annual winter conference in 1998. At that conference, James Womack spoke on the need and opportunity to extend lean production (manufacturing) concepts and techniques to the construction industry and Greg Howell27 shared the Lean Construction Institute's vision of that application. John was sufficiently impressed that he allowed Linbeck to negotiate with its primary subcontractors rather than competitively bid them as had been the University's practice. At this point, a substantial building program stood in the offing and Linbeck was one of three contractors competing for the lion's share. Kathy Jones, Linbeck's project manager, had the author conduct several educational and training sessions with project personnel, including the architect. Unfortunately, the architect refused to participate in the Last Planner system. However, the subcontractors became totally committed and enthusiastic about the planning process during the course of the job, as did Rice University's personnel. The project was completed to a very aggressive schedule to the satisfaction of users and within the budget. Rice University was so well pleased with the performance that Linbeck won its Fondren Library Project, and is well situated to do roughly half a billion dollars worth of work in the Rice Program over the next several years.

Ballard

8-1

Last Planner

8.2 PPC and Reasons
The author facilitated team scheduling exercises that produced an overall project schedule, then a more detailed schedule for the initial phase of work and the design development needed to support it. That phase schedule became the driver for weekly work planning, the results of which are shown in Figure 8.1. Over a period of approximately eleven weeks, PPC rose to a level of 85% or so, then stabilized at that level for the duration of the project. This was an unprecedented accomplishment at the time, and resulted from the dedication of the owner, general contractor, and subcontractor personnel to the Last Planner System and its goal of plan reliability. Kathy Jones reinforced the Last Planner principles by fining those who used the expression 'I hope' or 'hopefully' in connection with a commitment to do work. (The fine was a six pack of beer to be collected at the project-ending celebration.) The project manager for one subcontractor volunteered at an LCI research workshop that "It's fun to go to work now!"

27

Co-founder with the author of the Lean Construction Institute in August, 1997.

Ballard

8-2

Last Planner

1 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% PPC 50.0% 90.0% 80.Figure 8.0% 4 Wk Mvg Ave.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Old Chemistry Building-PPC Table 8.0% 60.0% 70.1 Date Tasks Completed Tasks Assigned 1/25/99 2/1/99 2/8/99 2/15/99 2/22/99 2/29/99 20 39 38 55 40 49 48 57 49 61 44 60 3/8/99 3/15/99 3/22/99 3/29/99 4/5/99 4/12/99 4/19/99 4/26/99 46 57 46 57 56 66 57 66 71 77 66 76 66 75 66 82 Date Tasks Completed Tasks Assigned 5/3/99 5/10/99 5/17/99 5/24/99 6/1/99 60 64 53 62 65 72 64 69 50 56 6/7/99 6/14/99 6/21/99 6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99 55 64 65 72 69 80 62 67 62 83 66 76 63 71 73 80 Date Tasks Completed Tasks Assigned 8/2/99 59 67 8/9/99 53 65 Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data Ballard 8-3 Last Planner .0% 10. 40.0% 30.

Ballard 8-4 Last Planner . but that impact would only be evident in schedule changes and in the lookahead process. Material Deliveries. Figure 8. the low frequency of manpower problems is a testament to the subcontractors' dedication to the project. Eq pt . The remaining reasons categories were Schedule Accuracy (the assignment shouldn't have been made). Design problems did impact the job. Equipment (part of the building. As this occurred during a building boom in the Houston area. and Overcrowding. Rework. Weather.Of the relatively few failures to complete weekly assignments. not construction equipment). Design Coordination.C oo rd . perhaps concealed by the high PPC and low incidence of design coordination as a reason for failing to complete weekly work plan assignments.D el R ew or k W ea th O er ve rc ro w di ng Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions 8.3 Observations Lack of participation by the architect was a serious deficiency on the project. es .2 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% M an po w er M ak e R Sc ea he dy d. Ac cu ra cy M at 'l D el D . most were caused by lack of manpower or failure to complete prerequisite work ("make ready").

As for things that might be done better on future projects.4 Learnings On the positive side.Unfortunately. Lesser issues. The commercial success of the general contractor and its subcontractors indicates the power and impact of increasing plan reliability. the Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project demonstrated that PPC could be maintained consistently at a level of 85% through development and nurturing of teamwork and the subsequent team enforcement of norms and rules. the lookahead process was not fully and formally developed on this project. specifically team production of detailed phase schedules. in part because it was still being defined and its techniques created at the time Old Chemistry was initiated. resulting from intense negotiation among the speciality contractors themselves. include the need for a more transparent lookahead process and the need for more explicit learning from analysis and action on reasons for failures. implementation of Last Planner in design and involvement of design professionals is certainly number one. Ballard 8-5 Last Planner . within a schedule framework established by the general contractor. 8. Specific techniques that were trialed successfully on this project included team scheduling. This commercial alliance among Linbeck and its 'preferred' suppliers is a critical component in the recipe for success. but still important. and has Rice University's agreement to keep the same subcontractors in place for that project. Linbeck intends to extend the Last Planner System to the design phase of the Fondren Library Project.

the Barnes case incorporates most of all previous learnings and the latest developments in technique and implementation. Ballard 9-1 Last Planner . the period of data collection extended from the week of 6/26/99 through the week of 10/11/99. followed by site visits and coaching.2 PPC AND REASONS As shown in Figure 9.CHAPTER NINE: CASE FIVE-ZENECA PROJECT 9. 9. all provided by the author. Implementation of the Last Planner system began with classroom training. Zeneca is a biotechnology company located in Richmond. It appears that PPC gradually improved throughout that period until culminating in four consecutive weeks in which PPC measured 100%. Of all the cases included in this dissertation. Part of that transformation is to be achieved by implementation and perfection of the Last Planner system of production control. The Zeneca Project reported here is one of a series of seismic retrofits of laboratory and office buildings being performed by Barnes.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LAST PLANNER IMPLEMENTATION Barnes Construction is a member of the Lean Construction Institute and is embarked on transforming itself into a lean organization. One of the critical improvements to be seen is in the methodical analysis and removal of constraints from scheduled tasks. California near San Francisco.1.

Figure 9.2 Sub Manpower 6% Installation Error 6% Decided to hold off 6% Pulled from wrong week 6% Space conflict 11% Not Defined 16% Theft of Bobcat wheel 6% Design 11% Prerequisite Work 32% Zeneca-Reasons Ballard 9-2 Last Planner . there were relatively few Figure 9.1 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99 8/2/99 8/9/99 8/16/99 8/23/99 PPC 8/30/99 9/7/99 9/13/99 9/20/99 9/27/99 10/4/99 10/11/99 10/18/99 10/25/99 11/1/99 4 Wk Mvg Ave Zeneca-PPC With such a high percentage of weekly assignments completed.

3. specify what work is to be completed within the week. sequence. Otherwise. by this writer. if make ready actions indeed could not be taken in time. Select weekly work plan assignments from those that meet quality criteria of definition. Use the weekly work plan form and be sure to complete all sections. Try to get to root Ballard 9-3 Last Planner .2. and size. and so few occasions for identifying reasons for noncompletions. 9. As originally envisioned. calculate the percent plan complete (PPC) for the previous week and identify reasons for each assignment that was not completed. Following is a statement. defer the task until it could be made ready. Insist subcontractors give input into weekly work plans and lookahead schedules. Such as were identified are shown in Figure 9.noncompletions. they were to appeal for help to higher levels of their organizations. including make ready needs and workable backlog. then.3 CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS AND MAKE READY The technique of constraints analysis. of the directives governing the Last Planner system installation and execution at Barnes: Barnes Production Control Requirements 1. Notes and action items were added to the constraint analysis form to serve as a reminder to various parties regarding the actions they needed to take to make tasks ready in time to be performed. Issue weekly work plans and expect every superintendent and foreman to have them in their pocket. When assigned tasks extend beyond one week. status information regarding constraints was collected each week on all tasks scheduled to start within the next 6 weeks. 2. Hold weekly subcontractor coordination meetings on each project. soundness. pioneered on the CCSR Project. became a key tool in Zeneca's success. Each week. The primary rule applied to this lookahead process was to only allow tasks to retain their scheduled starts if the planners were confident they could be made ready in time.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

or actionable causes. Don't beat people up for plan failure, but insist that they learn from their experience. Maintain a 5 week lookahead schedule at a level of detail needed to identify make ready needs. Add 1 week each week. Do constraints analysis on each activity on the 5 week lookahead schedule, using the constraints analysis form. Remember to mark an activity as unconstrained only if you have positive knowledge that the constraint does not exist or has been removed ('guilty until proven innocent'). Each week, email or fax the constraints analysis form to each subcontractor that has activities scheduled on the lookahead and ask them to provide status information. Assign make ready actions as appropriate; e.g., the technical engineer will resolve RFIs, the project sponsor will expedite outstanding payments, the project controls manager will deal with contract and change order issues, etc. Obviously, subcontractors will also have make ready tasks such as generating submittals, expediting fabrication and deliveries, acquiring necessary equipment and tools, reserving labor, etc. Maintain a statused and current master project schedule. Involve subcontractors in producing master and phase schedules. Phase schedules are detailed plans for completing a specific phase of project work; e.g., site preparation, foundations, superstructure, skin, etc. Use the team scheduling technique in which participants describe activities on sheets that they stick on a wall, then negotiate details, sequencing, etc.

Project Checklist
1. Does the project hold weekly subcontractor coordinating meetings? 2. Are weekly work plan forms completed each week, including make ready needs and workable backlog? 3. Are weekly assignments adequately defined; e.g., is the work to be completed during the week specified? 4. Are weekly work plans used in the field; e.g., does every foreman and superintendent carry it with them? 5. Are weekly work plans reviewed in the coordinating meetings, PPC calculated, and reasons identified? 6. Is a 5 week lookahead schedule maintained, with one week added each week? 7. Are subcontractors requested each week to provide status information regarding constraints on the activities listed on the project lookahead schedule? 8. Which subcontractors provide information each week for constraints analysis? Which subcontractors don't? 9. Are make ready actions assigned each week? 10. What people carry out their make ready assignments? Who doesn't? 11. Is the rule followed that activities keep their scheduled dates only if the planner is confident they can be made ready in time? 12. Of those activities scheduled to start within the next 3 weeks, what percentage are not made ready?

Ballard

9-4

Last Planner

13. Is the rule followed to only allow activities onto weekly work plans that have had all constraints removed that could be removed before the start of the plan week? 14. What is the project's PPC? Is it rising, falling, or staying the same? 15. What are the dominant reasons for failing to complete assignments on weekly work plans? 16. Is a master project schedule and phase schedule maintained current and updated once a week? 17. Are subcontractors involved in producing master and phase schedules using team scheduling? Table 9.1
Activity Activity Description ID Planned Start Responsible Contract / Date Design Materials LaborEquipment Prereq Weather Work

Change Orders Complete ubmittals RFI's AE S Party

E-20 First Floor Install dowel template 12-Aug NLB Pour mat slab @E-10 17-Aug NLB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Above Above X X X X X X X X X

X Concrete X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Move tower shoring to E-14 23-Aug Safway X Hard demo (Beams) One side walls Install wall rebar Epoxy dowels Pull Test Close forms E-10 E-10 First Floor Fir Install tower shoring Excavate footing 30-Aug Cal-Wrecking X 13-Sep Peck & Hiller X 16-Sep McGrathX 22-Sep NLB 23-Sep ICI X X

Crane Above X Above

X Collectors X X X X Above Above Above Above

24-Sep Peck & Hiller X

23-Aug Safway X 13-Sep Cal-Wrecking X

X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

Crane Cure

X X X X X X

Possible footing resize X Collectors X X X X X X X X X X X Above Above

Chip footings if necessary 16-Sep Cal-Wrecking X Drill and epoxy dowels @mat NLB 16-Sep Install rebar @mat Rebar template X

XIf necessary X X X X X X X X X X

17-Sep McGrathX 24-Sep NLB X

Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form

Ballard

9-5

Last Planner

9.4 OBSERVATIONS

The extremely high level of plan reliability achieved on Zeneca may have resulted in part from its being relatively simple, not technically but rather operationally. A relatively few subcontractors were involved28, and few were required to work in close proximity, either temporally or spatially. On the other hand, the production control processes and techniques employed appear also to have made a contribution. Apart from the Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project, in no other case were subcontractors more intimately involved in the lookahead process or in weekly work planning. Further, the contractor's execution of the lookahead process, particularly constraints analysis and assignment of action items to remove constraints, was much more rigorous than on previous projects.

9.5 LEARNINGS It is possible to achieve PPC levels above 90% over an extended period of time through consistent implementation of Last Planner system techniques. Especially important in
28

Once the rebar installation was well underway, rarely were more than 5 subcontractors scheduled to work on the project in any week. Safway-shoring, McGrath-rebar installation, ICI-rebar inspection, Peck & Hiller-formwork, Cal-Wreckingdemolition, National-concrete coring. By contrast, on an interiors project underway at the same time, an average of 10 subcontractors were given assignments each week.

Ballard

9-6

Last Planner

this regard are constraint analysis and subcontractor participation in planning and control. Ballard 9-7 Last Planner .

however participants considered the Last Planner system successful and superior to traditional methods of project control.1 Summary of Case Study Results Data collection for the five case studies was concluded in the following order and dates. Next Stage was an exploratory case study on the application of Last Planner to design.CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS 10. The Activity Definition Model was created for that purpose and has subsequently been applied extensively for the purpose of task explosion. Numerous learnings were drawn from the case. perhaps the most important being the need to explode design tasks into operational detail near in time to their execution. The application was successful and piloted constraints analysis as a tool for evaluating the readiness of potential assignments and for identifying the actions needed to make them ready. in order to accommodate the self-generating characteristic of the design process. Ballard 10-1 Last Planner . Interruption of the project prevents drawing firm conclusions. all within the period in which this dissertation was in progress: q q q q q Case One-CCSR Project Case Two-Next Stage Case Three-Pacific Contracting Case Four-Old Chemistry Building Renovation Case Five-Zeneca Jan-Mar '98 July-Nov '98 Jan-Oct '99 Feb-Aug '99 June-Oct '99 CCSR addressed the question how to apply the Last Planner system to subcontracted projects as distinct from the direct hire production to which for the most part it had previously been applied.

It is not suggested that every project will be able to achieve the same results even should they imitate Zeneca's rigorous application of Last Planner rules and techniques. Barnes Construction's Zeneca Project. Diligent adherence to system rules allowed the contractor to achieve an average 76% PPC level. The Old Chemistry Building Renovation case revealed a sustained PPC of 85%. the project team also added a very successful education and team building component to achieve this breakthrough result. However.The Pacific Contracting case explored the limitations faced by a speciality contractor trying to unilaterally apply the Last Planner system. sustained a PPC near 100%. With the opportunity to benefit from previous cases. the extensive involvement of subcontractors in planning and constraints analysis is a model to be imitated by all. apparently settling the question whether or not that level of plan reliability can be achieved. several periods of precipitously lower performance appear to have been correlated with failure of their customer projects to make work ready when scheduled. 10. advance operations design. The relatively few subcontractors involved during the measurement period may have simplified the coordination problem beyond the norm. The fifth and last case study. Pacific Contracting has rededicated themselves to the routine use of First Run Studies in response to this finding. However. reducing the amount of work available to Pacific Contracting and consequently making them vulnerable to low PPC should they experience any plan failures at all.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level? Ballard 10-2 Last Planner . Another interesting finding was that plan failures within their control tended to be primarily from lack of detailed.

with Zeneca consistently above 90%. Perhaps the most valuable contribution of the case was its clarification of the nature of the design process and consequently of the obstacles to management control. a process control system is required that does not assume a simple matching of criteria and design alternatives. 10. which covers a wide range of tasks. In the latter three case studies. make ready actions. Previously. and identification and action on reasons for failing to complete assigned tasks. The PPC levels recorded were significantly better than previous measurements.Review of the case studies suggests that plan reliability improves with adherence to the Last Planner system rules. Unlike making. the Last Planner system as now developed appears to be precisely matched to the nature of the design process. The exploratory case suggested but did not confirm that Last Planner can effectively be applied to design production control. However. 1997). with extensive education and involvement of participants. and with use of techniques such as task explosion. including making multiple copies of a single design. dialectical development of both. design itself is essentially generative. The primary response to those obstacles has been the development and implementation of the Activity Definition Model as a technique for exploding design tasks as they enter the Ballard 10-3 Last Planner . shielding production from uncertainty through selection of quality assignments. but rather facilitates a progressive. measured PPC above 70% was very rare (Ballard and Howell. constraints analysis.3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability during design processes? Evidence for settling this question is not so decisive. As such. all achieved PPC levels of 76% or higher.

1. Ballard 10-4 Last Planner . 10. a process flow diagram is created and each of its deliverables is decomposed using the same activity definition model. Figure 10.lookahead process. The prevalence of confusion over directives as a reason for plan failure in the Next Stage case study indicates a need for more explicit specification of the directives governing design tasks. In the case of complex deliverables.1 Activity Definition Model Redo No Directives Meets Criteria? Yes Release Prerequisite Work Process Output Resources Activity Definition Model ACTIVITY DEFINITION OUTPUT represents the result or deliverable produced by performing the scheduled activity. some specifically intended to make it better fit design applications and others for general improvement. A tool for making that specification is the Activity Definition Model29 shown in Figure 10. Ideas and suggestions for further research on this question are described below.4 Directions for Future Research The case studies suggest the need for further modifications to the Last Planner System.

if nonconforming. Subsequently. This quality assurance prior to releasing work between PUs has been extended by some lean contractors to the progressing of work. It is rather the exception than the rule that any design alternative maximally satisfies all the multiple criteria. The question is rather at what level of value must tradeoffs be made among Ballard 10-5 Last Planner . 29 30 Although developed independently by this author in the mid-1980s. either the criteria are revised based on new insights into customer or stakeholder needs. The PU producing the output should understand how it is to be used by the customer PUs before production. inspection can be either by the producer or jointly by producer and customer. Self-inspection and joint supplier/customer inspection are key concepts in the method of in-process inspection.What are the DIRECTIVES governing my output. it is to be evaluated against the criteria and . and then only if they are in the work packages (batches) needed by the customer PUs. JOINT SUPPLIER/CUSTOMER ASSIGNMENTS A critical element for success is explicit agreement between ‘customer’ and ‘supplier’ regarding those criteria. although arguably the concept of "directives" is different from the IDEF concept of "constraints". which reduces defects through empowerment of the workers themselves. as opposed to exclusive reliance on external inspectors. the Activity Definition Model is similar to IDEF. or the output is revised to better meet the criteria30. and inputs? To what criteria must my output conform in order to serve the needs of our customer production units? What PREREQUISITES do I need from others? What RESOURCES do I need to allocate to this assignment? Before releasing the output to the PUs that need it. Only products and installations that have passed quality control inspection can be counted as completed work. process. Conformance of outputs to design criteria is not a matter of matching.

and the objective of selecting and executing only those assignments that release work to others. it is proposed to make the supplier and customer jointly responsible for successful completion of assignments. the supplier can assume that the task does not need to be performed at this time. The customer equally should make sure the supplier understands what he/she needs. Ballard 10-6 Last Planner . REASONS CATEGORIZATION AND ANALYSIS The reasons categories used on the Next Stage Project did not promote identification of root causes.Recognizing the critical need for the supplier process and the customer process to agree on directives. Aside from assignments generated by push scheduling. Consequently. it is proposed to use the elements of the Activity Definition Model as the primary categories and also to provide a guide for reasons analysis that will facilitate identification of actionable causes. The supplier should make sure he/she understands what the customer needs. Exploration of such issues is part of the future research agenda beyond the scope of this thesis. in the absence of an explicit pull signal from the customer. those competing criteria.

4: Incorrect specification of output. A.2 Directives-related Plan Failures Why did criteria change during the week? What could be done to avoid the need for change or to find out about the change and include in your weekly planning? A-1: I didn't understand the real criteria for my deliverable. What changes in directives are needed? Who can make the changes? Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives The primary categories are directives. and process.1.1: Didn't understand what the requestor needed and why she wanted it. A.3: Redefinition of criteria occurred during the plan week.2: Incorrect specification of resources.2. Ballard 10-7 Last Planner . prerequisites.2-10.1. A.Figure 10.5.1: Incorrect specification of prerequisites. A.2. Once placed within one of these categories. Why didn't you understand what the requestor needed or the applicable requiremen ts? What would prevent repetition? A-2: The directives were incorrect.3: Incorrect specification of processes.2: Didn't understand the applicable requirements.2. resources. A. A.2. a plan failure can be analyzed in accordance with the guidelines expressed in Figures 10. A.1.

c: Failed to analyzed is that of the agreement specify content.2. Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites Ballard 10-8 Last Planner . selecting A.4: Can't make an agreement with supplier B.e: Failed to the Last Planner who provide sufficient failed to complete an lead time assignment because Regarding each of the that provider failed to above. with the prerequisite provider B. B. analysis.3 cases by starting over again. B.2. C.3 Prerequisites-related Plan Failures B.1. you make an the failure being B.1a: Didn't know it was needed. But this time. B.2.b: Knew it was needed.2. B. promise rather than B.Figure 10. B. Why didn't you know that prerequisite was needed or why didn't you make the request. B. but didn't make the request.2: Incomplete request. Analyze B.1: Didn't request needed prerequisites. or D.3: Promise not kept by provider of prerequisite. ask what caused keep his promise.d: Failed to who failed to keep his supplier? specify delivery time.b: Failed to Why can't and carrying out the identify the provider. What would prevent repetitions? the failure and what could prevent it reoccurring.

) Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resource Ballard 10-9 Last Planner .a: Breakdown (Ask what could be done to prevent breakdowns.b: Overloaded (Ask why loads were not integrated.2.1: Lack of equipment or tools C.2. if absence was avoidable.1: Didn't understand load.) C.1: Got bumped by higher priority (Ask why priority was not known in advance.a. C.2: Insufficient labor or time C. C. C.4 Resources-related Plan Failures C.b: Didn't understand capacity.2.) C.1.a. C.b: Labor was requested and allocated but not available when needed.2.2: Absenteeism (Ask why absence was not known in advance.a: Didn't request enough labor or time C.2.Figure 10.b.2. or what could be done to include knowledge of the change in weekly planning.b. what could be done to avoid the need for change.1.) Ask why the priority changed.

d Processing error was caused by a change in the working environment Ask for the cause of each cause.1. why was skill inadequate? ..why was process inadequate? d.a Processing error was caused by lack of skill d.g.5 Process-related Plan Failures d.c Processing error was caused by inadequate tools or equipment d.. improved through the case studies included in this thesis.5 Conclusion The Last Planner system of production control.1.Figure 10. Applicability and effectiveness of the Last Planner system to design remains to be definitively determined.b Processing error was caused by inadequate process d. e. as opposed to approaches that rely on push scheduling and early Ballard 10-10 Last Planner .1. however the generative nature of the design process suggests that a control system such as Last Planner is needed.1.1 Error in processing produced defective output d.. has been shown to be effective in achieving and maintaining plan reliability above the 90% level in site installation.2 Acts of God or the Devil produced defective output What went wrong? Why wasn't it anticipated? Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process 10.

selection from alternatives. Further development of the Last Planner system is suggested regarding activity definition, joint supplier/customer assignments, and reasons analysis. In addition, research is needed to quantify and understand the benefits of greater plan reliability for safety, quality, time, and cost.

Ballard

10-11

Last Planner

GLOSSARY OF TERMS31
activity definition model An input-process-output representation of design tasks, supplemented by specification of criteria (entering the process rectangle from above) and of resources (entering the process rectangle from below) and an inspection process resulting either in redo or release to the customer process. The model is used as a guide to exploding design tasks into a level of detail at which their readiness for execution can be assessed and advanced.

Redo
No

Criteria

Meets Criteria?

Yes

Release

Input

Process

Output

Resources

assignment a directive or order given to a worker or workers directly producing or contributing to the production of design or construction. Example: Scott, you and Julie are to make the changes in wall locations detailed in memo #123 by the end of the week. Anne, you find out what the building authorities will require for a structural permit. capacity the amount of work a production unit, whether individual or group, can accomplish in a given amount of time. Example: Jim the engineer can perform 10 piping stress analyses per day on average, but the analyses to be done this week are particularly difficult. He will only be able to do 7. Jim’s average capacity is 10, but his capacity for the specific work to be done this week is 7. commitment planning Planning that results in commitments to deliver on which others in the production system can rely because they follow the rule that only sound
31

This glossary was produced specifically for this thesis. An expanded version, with some modifications in definitions, is available at <www.leanconstruction.org>. It was produced by this author and Iris Tommelein, LCI principal and Associate Professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Ballard

G-12

Last Planner

assignments are to be accepted or made. Example: On my work plan for next week, I have included providing Cheryl the soils data she needs to evaluate alternative substructure systems for the building. All known constraints have been removed from my task, I understand what’s required and how the information will be used, and I have reserved needed labor and equipment. constraints something that stands in the way of a task being executable or sound. Typical constraints on design tasks are inputs from others, clarity of criteria for what is to be produced or provided, approvals or releases, and labor or equipment resources. Screening tasks for readiness is assessing the status of their constraints. Removing constraints is making a task ready to be assigned. control to cause events to conform to plan, or to initiate replanning and learning. Example: Exploding master schedule activities into greater detail, screening the resultant tasks against constraints, and acting to remove those constraints are all control actions intended to cause events to conform to plan, or to identify as early as practical the need for replanning. Learning is initiated through analysis of reasons for failing to cause events to conform to plan. the user of one’s output. Example: John needs the results of our acoustical tests in order to select the best location for his mechanical equipment. John is our customer because he will use what we produce. Design is a type of goal-directed, reductive reasoning. There are always many possible designs. Product design reasons from function to form. Process design reasons from ends to means.

customer

design

design criteria the characteristics required for acceptance of product or process design. Example: The structural engineer needs both geometric and load inputs from the architect, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. Loads need only be accurate within 20%. Example: The cladding design must be consistent with the architectural standards of the local historical society. In addition, it must be within the 2 million pound budget and installable within a 6 week window concluding no later than 6th April, 2000. exploding expressing a task in greater detail, typically by producing a flow diagram of the process of which the output is the task being exploded, then determining the sub-tasks needed to make the task ready for assignment and execution when scheduled. Sub-tasks are categorized in terms of the activity definition model, resulting in actions to clarify or specify criteria, requests for inputs from suppliers, and reservation of needed resources. first run studies extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional team including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed

Ballard

G-13

Last Planner

lookahead planning The middle level in the planning system hierarchy. Lookahead schedules may be presented in list form or bar charts. made popular by W. redesign of the operation. etc. draftsperson. resulting from exploding master schedule activities by means of the activity definition model. A quality assignment ‘loads’ a resource within its capacity. First run studies follow the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. Edwards Deming. what is to be accomplished by a design squad or individual designer. lookahead schedule the output of lookahead planning. Within a weekly work plan. measured by PPC. the number of planned completions divided into the number of actual completions. PPC percent plan complete. and execution of actions needed to make tasks ready for assignment when scheduled. make ready take actions needed to remove constraints from assignments to make them sound. load the amount of output expected from a production unit or individual worker within a given time. below front end planning and above commitment-level planning. screening the resultant tasks before allowing entry into the lookahead window or advancement within the window. Typically design processes have lookahead windows extending from 3 to 12 weeks into the future. if your weekly work plans have a 60% PPC. Ballard G-14 Last Planner . Example: You need to know the surface area of glass.by methodical study. lookahead window how far ahead of scheduled start activities in the master schedule are subjected to explosion. plan reliability the extent to which a plan is an accurate forecast of future events. and retrial until a standard is established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. provided by the architect. in order to size cooling equipment.e. they accurately predict completion/release of 60% of the weekly assignments. For example. screening. prerequisite work work done by others on materials or information that serves as an input or substrate for your work. dedicated to controlling the flow of work through the production system. ‘Squad boss’ and ‘discipline lead’ are common names for last planners in design processes. planning defining criteria for success and producing strategies for achieving objectives. i. last planner the person or group that makes assignments to direct workers.. engineer. or make ready.

resources labour or instruments of labour. We always check if we have or can get necessary information from others. e. shielding. insufficient time. it’s Ruben and Tim.. Tim’s not as experienced. Resources have production capacities as well as costs. unclear requirements. so that we can decide what we will do. Reasons can also be sought for failing to advance scheduled tasks from master schedule to lookahead schedule or from one week to the next within the lookahead schedule. productivity the ratio of the amount of work produced to the resources used in its production. initiating the delivery of materials or information based on the readiness of the process into which they will enter for conversion into outputs. then compare with what we did to improve our planning. I forgot. Example: We never make assignments that are not sound. drawing on the same skills and techniques.. But. Either the process is ready prior to requesting delivery or plan reliability is sufficiently high that work plans can be used to predict readiness. Note: what’s different here is that the readiness of the process is known rather than wished. Ballard G-15 Last Planner . should-can-will-did to be effective.assignments to the capacity of the production unit to do the work. Example: x drawings per labour hour.. sizing…. lack of prerequisites. screening determining the status of tasks in the lookahead window relative to their constraints. Consequently. but rather what resources act on or process.. Example: Ruben and James should be able to collect that data and analyze it by Thursday.production units from uncertainty and variation by making only quality assignments. PU pulling See production unit. Example: Request delivery of prerequisite information at or before the time you will be ready to process that information. sound assignments that have had all constraints possible removed. if the requirements are clear. Example: a team of electrical designers and engineers responsible for a specific area or functions of a building. materials and information are not resources. and choosing to advance or retard tasks based on their constraint status and the probability of removing constraints.production unit(PU) a group of direct production workers that do or share responsibility for similar work. reasons…for failing to complete weekly assignments.g. production management systems must tell us what we should do and what we can do. I’d better give them an extra day. etc.

prerequisite work. in order to assure plan reliability. so use them as fallback or fill-in work when needed. supplier lead time the time from sending a request for delivery to the delivery. each of which processes them before releasing to those downstream. workable backlog assignments that have met all quality criteria. utilization the percentage of a resource’s capacity that is actually used. underloading making assignments to a production unit or resource within a production unit that absorbs less than 100% of its capacity.supplier the provider of needed inputs. Example: Completing those spare parts lists doesn’t have to be completed for 3 months. work flow control causing information or materials to move through a network of production units in a desired sequence and rate. Example: If you can accurately forecast only 1 day in advance when work will be completed. our labour utilization last week was only 40%. Example: Because of time lost waiting for materials. materials. typically produced as near as possible to the beginning of the week. information. weekly work plan a list of assignments to be completed within the specified week. except that some must yet satisfy the sequence criterion by prior execution of prerequisite work already scheduled. directives. but it won’t harm anything if they are produced earlier. resources. Underloading is necessary to accommodate variation in processing time or production rate. window of reliability how far in advance future work completions can be accurately forecast. Underloading is also done to release time for workers to take part in training or learning. then your window of reliability is 1 day. Ballard G-16 Last Planner . Other backlog assignments may be performed within a range of time without interfering with other tasks. or for equipment to be maintained. etc. work flow the movement of information and materials through a network of production units.

Wortmann. Ballard. American Society of Civil Engineers." Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Production. Vol. Available in Alarcón. 1993. (1990).W. October. Production Flow Analysis. and Campbell. 275-286 Bennett.LIST OF REFERENCES Addis. and Casten. New York. Bucciarelli.L.K. J. Finland. 1994. NY. Glenn (1993). Campbell.L. April 22-24. London. The Netherlands. 13-4. Unpublished.D. Lean Construction Institute. Rotterdam. “Stabilizing Work Flow. 11/99. T. L.T. J. Monterey. Ballard R-17 Last Planner . J. “Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control”. Rand McNally. Spring Conference of the Northern California Construction Institute.. Elsevier. 101-110. and J. Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design. No. Ballard.T. Production Engineer. U. and Stanley. J. D. J. Houston. Proceedings of the 4th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. “Improving Work Flow Reliability”. Burbidge. ed. Oxford University Press. Bertrand. 1994. (1984). Oxford. 11-17. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Glenn. Alarcón. Griffith University. 1. Howell. Espoo. Australia. Soft systems methodology in action. Glenn (1999).. Ballard. Glenn (1994). Production Control: A Structural and Design Oriented Approach. Checkland. University of California. 124 No. Chicago. Glenn (1997). (1979). J. “PARC: A Case Study”. “Five golden rules to avoid bankruptcy”. Quasi-Experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Glenn (1998). (1997) Lean Construction. William (1990). CA. Chile. 1997. J. Glenn and Gregory Howell (1994). Gold Coast. Construction Project Management. Santiago. "Improving EPC Performance. p. "The Last Planner". Wijngaard (1990). Chicago: Rand McNally. (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. P. London. Ballard. Available in Alarcon. Design Studies 5(3). Butterworths. 1997. (1985). (1983). (1989). Balkema Publishers. “Reflective practice in engineering design”. CA. D.” Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Gregory (1997). Vol 62. Amsterdam. 220 p. L.C. August. TX. “Front End Planning”. University of Birmingham. Proceedings of the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.L. Burbidge. Ellis Horwood. Cook. Glenn and Howell. 10. Mike (1996). Ballard. Ballard. & Scholes. Workshop on Front End Planning.M. Ballard. Berkeley. “Shielding Production: An Essential Step in Production Control. John Wiley & Sons. Ballard. Gregory.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 185-190.

Design Theory and Methodology.. (1990).. A research report prepared for the Electrical Contracting Foundation. Massachusetts. Suresh. Eppinger. Howell.j. (eds. S. Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing Management. Koskela. Out of Control. Elsevier Science Publishers B. D. and Gebala. (1997). Konda. Rept. Hayes. G. Diekmann. “On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering” in Anumba. London.A. G. Bryan Thrush (1986). Kevin (1994). Wheelwright. Out Of The Crisis. W. Mass. Koskela. William (1998).ac. http://www.. 11 p.: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. R. Stanford Univ. Eswaran (1995). Cambridge. Susan. Jeffrey and Weil. 252-321. ASME. (1991). L. London. Koskela. Plan Reliability of Electrical Contractors. 227-233. (Available at http://web. Steven C. and Evbuomwan. and Clark. Free Press. Tech.E. Hopp. L. Robert H. Barbara (1985). Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design.D. 429 p. Sept. and Spearman. New York.” ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference.Conklin. Project Control in Design Engineering. L. Ballard. and Eppinger. Birmingham. Amsterdam. P. Massachusetts. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Lean Construction. Tanhuanperaa. “Can Project Controls Do Its Job?” Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Lean Construction.V. (1996).. pp 89-99. Mark L. N. & Huovila. L.html Deming.uk/d. D. (1988).. “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. Birmingham. 1996. D. Hayes-Roth. Lahdenperaa and V-P.P. National Electrical Contractors Association." Reading Room Research Center. and Subrahmanian. Edwards (1986). 1996. Proceedings of the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. "Wicked problems: Naming the pain in organizations. P. School of Civil Engineering. 9. Whitney. Kim B. Cambridge University Press. editor (1992). Gebala.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked. Steven D. Sounding the potential of lean construction: A case study. Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning Organization. Stanford. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.bham. Gregory and Glenn Ballard (1996). David A.. CA. UK. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Australia. Analysis and Manufacturing. (1996). Ballard R-18 Last Planner . Marc. 22-32. C. August 25 . James E. Gold Coast. “Organizing the Tasks in Complex Design Projects.crook/lean/) Kelly. Reading. The Netherlands. University of Birmingham. 75 pp.. Smith.3mco. England. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering. (1992). Howell. 2nd ed. Koskela. London 3-4 July. “A Blackboard Architecture for Control”.). Chicago. Wallace J. 72. 31. Washington. Finger.. and Tanhuanpaa. Academic Press Limited. Artificial Intelligence.28. “Concurrent design happens at the interfaces”. The Institution of Structural Engineers.. DE-Vol. Boston.. Green. “Towards Lean Design Management”. Construction Industry Institute. Knowledge Aided Design. University of Texas at Austin. Veli-Pekka (1997).C.. E. and K. Addison-Wesley. Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97.

Elsevier Science Ltd. Colin 1993. New York. (1982) Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control. 6(2). (1962).. Chicago. James M. Alexander. (1993). "Is Construction Project Planning Really Doing Its Job?" ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.. 313 pp. University of Chicago Press. Research Triangle Park. Laufer. Thomas S. Shapira. Robson. A. 5. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Simultaneous Management. Lloyd. Bert and Wamelink. A. Production Control in Construction. Fundamentals of process control theory. Neil. “Alliance Lean Design/Construct on a Small High Tech Project”. CA. American Society of Civil Engineering. The Netherlands. New York. 162-176.K. Productivity Press. Great Britain. Instrument Society of America. and Webber. The structure of scientific revolutions. Project Management Institute. Leland S. (Translation not credited. Darryl (1997). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. NY Laufer. Denker. Riggs. Ohno. Murrill. Brazil. Rittel. Aaron J. “Essentials of Project Planning: Owner’s Perspective”. Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference for Lean Construction. University of Texas at Austin. Deasley. Taiichi (1988). “Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View”. Alexander (1997). PA Reinertsen. Upper Darby. “Ethnographic Benchmarking in the Aerospace and Construction Sectors: a Method for Inducing Cultural Change”.) Project Management Institute. 155-169. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.” International Journal of Project Management. Alexander (1987). “Simultaneous management: the key to excellence in capital projects. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production.. London. Berkeley. Donald (1997). 14(4). p. Paul W. Melles.. NY. J. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Construction Industry Institute.. Massachusetts. J. (1994) “The multiplicity concept in construction project planning”. Cost and Schedule Control in Industrial Construction. Laufer.W. David. Seymour. and Shenhar. The Free Press. University of California. A. A. Sao Paolo. Tucker.] McNeill. Managing the Design Factory. Patrick (1989). AMACOM. Laufer. John. R. Standards Committee (1996). (1986).Koskela. (1973). New York. [Unpublished IMI Case for Support. Shenhar. Horst W. Ballard R-19 Last Planner ." Policy Sciences 4 (1973). 189-199. Research Methods. (1987). pp 243-266. Private communication. (1999). Melvin W. Delft University Press. 2nd edition . Routledge. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and PractitionerReseachers. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Peter. 241-252 Kuhn. Journal of Management in Engineering. Morrison-Knudsen. U. Peter. and Crook. L. Gordon R. Robert (1998). (1996). Oxford. Laufer. Rooke.F. Miles. and Tucker. R. (1991). North Carolina. Delft. Cambridge.

Prentice Hall. USA. and Jones. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Terry. New York. 3. Scherer. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation. 1995. The Machine That Changed the World. (1990). J. Robert (1994). Ulrich. (1994). Shingo. (1996). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. CA Ballard R-20 Last Planner . Shigeo (1988). B. Jones. (1995). Delft University of Technology. J. Ronen. John Wiley & Sons. Cambridge. Womack. Andrew (1995). Elsevier Science Ltd. The Netherlands... Delft. E. U.Rodrigues. (editor) 1998. Comparison of Control Concepts and Information Systems in Different Parts of the Dutch Construction Industry. Thousand Oaks. and Tait. 151155. James P. Eden. 30(10). Irwin Professional Publishing. A. Chicago. Daniel T. NY. (1993). Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems. Productivity Press. 214-225. MA. Harper Perennial. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. NY. (1992). Melles. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Society. “Vicious circles of parallelism”.F. Williams. Colin. 825 p. NY. Schmenner. James P. New Jersey. McGraw-Hill. Fran. Yin.W. “The complete kit concept. “The role of system dynamics in project management: A comparative analysis with traditional models”.” International Journal of Production Research. D. Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production. Production/Operations Management: From the Inside Out-5th edition. NY. (1993). Roger W. Vol.K. 3rd edition. and Eppinger. Womack. NY. International Journal of Project Management. Roozenburg. 2457-2466.. HD31 U47 1995 Vollman et al. Chichester. and Eekels. 1992. Massachusetts.. Springer-Verlag. Ackermann. Simon and Schuster. Wamelink. Englewood Cliffs. Lincoln. B. J. NY. and Roos. and Blaauwendraad. 13 No. Product Design and Development. Sage Publications. Karl T.F. Steven D. Daniel T. N.M.

A. Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects. Archibald.. and Schwerer. March-April. Washington. (1994). Mandelbaum. Austin. 45-53. Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 3-25. Harvard Business Review. 12:445-455.).BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO (1991). Baldwin A. The Institution of Structural Engineers. Applebaum. Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design. & Newton. Addis. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.. Chris. Anthropological Quarterly. DC. Russell D. Robert. A. September. P. NY. Patrik (1996). Chris and Schön. and Evbuomwan. 1991. Y (1990). “Manipulating the flow of design information to improve the programming of building design”. AASHTO Task Force on Preconstruction Engineering Management (1996). John Wiley & Sons. (eds. Journal of Engineering Design. Selecting. Action Science. and Smith. 1993. MA. pp 18-19. Butterworth Architecture.. Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements Into Product Design. AASHTO Guidelines for Preconstruction Engineering Management. 1996. (1996) “Getting the Most out of Your Product Development Process”. Reading. C. New York. H. Construction Management and Economics. Allen. S. A.. The Art of the structural engineer. Donald A. Cambridge. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “A Data Flow Model to Plan and Manage the Building Design Process”. Baldwin. Chris (1996). Organizational learning: A Theory of action perspective. Akao.. and Managing Consultants. Nguyen. Allinson. 1990. Andersson. Anumba. (1982) “Construction Management: Tradition versus Bureaucratic Methods”. 10/82. DC. Kenneth. London 3-4 July. Artemis. 55(4). American Society of Civil Engineers (1981). Argyris. San Francisco. Putnam. Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. Guide for Contracting. 7th November. “Re-engineering of the Project Planning Process” in Turk. (1996). 1996. Washington. Ballard Biblio-21 Last Planner . Milwaukee. “Value Judgment”. E. Quality Management In The Constructed Project. Diana McLain (1985). London. N. A.. Adler. Inc. and Newton. Austin. New Civil Engineer.. Niclas and Johansson. William (1994). Argyris. S. V. (1978). London. ASQC Construction Technical Committee (1987). 7(1). Productivity Press. pp 4-15. (1992). 2nd edition. Addison Wesley.. The Wild Card of Design: A Perspective on Architecture in a Project Management Environment.

Li. Designing Engineers. Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction. Blanchard.Austin. Construction Management and Economics. and Ballard. John Wiley and Sons. “Specialist contractors: A review of issues raised by their new role in building”.” Submitted for review to the ASCE Computing Congress ’98.. (1995). C. Amor (ed. “The Production of Order and the Order of Production” in Hughes et al. R. Glenn and Koskela. Christiansen. Button. 1997.C. pp 1-15.R. Centre for strategic studies in construction. & Wood-Harper. John Wiley & Sons. Brazil. J. “Application of the Analytical Design Planning Technique in the Project Process”. Betts. Bacon. System engineering management. and Waskett. Construction Management and Economics. Bardram. Graham and Sharrock. NY. Systems Practice. T. B.. Watford. U. Brailsford Associates. and Waskett. John and Ferry. 1998. 1997. Paul (1998). New York. Iris D. I.. August. Andrew. Simon. Building Britain 2001.. 1999.). B. Cambridge. M. NY. P. 259-283. Chichester. (1993). P.the Virtual Design Team. Hyun Jeong.B. Loughborough University. MA. “Plans as Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow Systems” in Hughes et al. 8(3). Inc. New York. Department of Civil and Building Engineering. Barlow.L. “The bounding of a problem situation and the concept of a system’s boundary in soft systems methodology”. Flanagan. & Lansley. MIT Press. Glenn (1997). Baldwin. D. Checkland.K. Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design. of Civil Engineering. “Information Management in the Briefing Process”. Development of the ADePT Methodology: An Interim Report on the Link IDAC 100 Project. T. Product and Process Modelling in the Building Industry. Bulow. 16. Guaruja Beach. 12:551-556. Baizhan. Lauri (1998). Paul (1999). Jakob E. Construction Management and Economics. Systems Thinking. Matthew (1998). Douglas (1990). Dept. (1997). American Society of Civil Engineers. 11:221-245. DESIGN CRITERIA Bucciarelli. Baldwin. Choo. (1988). (1991). Helsinki. Inc. Brailsford Associates. Stanford University. Lansley.. (1994).” Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. 35-41. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. von (1989). L. 10p. Tommelein. “Construction Management and Economics: A review of the first ten years”. (1994). Betts. Bennett. Reading. (1981) “Effective Management of Engineering Design”. Washington.. “On the Agenda for Design Management Research. Andrew. “Constraint-Based Database for Work Package Scheduling. Groton School Athletic Facilities Program. Austin.S. 260 pp. Wes (1997). P. Ballard. Bennett.D. Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of coordination in engineering design teams : VDT . Jamie. (1993). and Atkin. Hammond. M. Ballard Biblio-22 Last Planner . Ph. Gray. Building Research Establishment Ltd. Inc. Dissertation. (1981). Simon.. August 25-27.. Phase I: Preliminary Assessment Report. “Re-engineering construction: a new management research agenda”. K.

Product Development Performance. D. 2nd edition. & Fujimoto.R. Concurrent Technologies. Esprit Basic Research Project 6225.J. K. Thomas Telford. 270 pp. “The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager”. Elsevier. The Chartered Institute of Building. CII (1995).3mco. Document ID D2. Richard and Sears.html Construction Task Force (1998). The Project Management Handbook. http://www. (eds) (1988). Construction Industry Institute. Clough. Concurrent Technologies 1995. 1995.CIB (1996). The Chartered Institute of Building. W. Cowan.I. 2nd edition. Construction Industry Development Agency. J. Texas. Report of the Construction Task Force to the Dept. Conklin. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Harvard Business Press. G.. Construction Industry Board Ltd. USA. (1968). Working Group 1. William (1998). Sydney. Transport and the Regions.S. Design Management for Productivity. H.G. of the Environment. Ding. The COMIC Project. Project Definition Guide. and Boardman. University of Texas at Austin. 32 pp. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Design Management: A study of practice in the building industry. How Others Manage the Design Process. Edward J. Occasional Paper No. New York. “Modelling Product Development Processes Using a Soft Systems Methodology” in Integrated Design and Process Technology. CIOB (1995). T. 40. Cleland. Working Group 11. Cole. and King. COMIC. Coles.W. Cooper. London. E. Report of DTI Overseas Science and Technology Expert Mission to Japan. A. Informing CSCW System Requirements.T. London. Van Nostrand Reinhold. (1991). John Wiley & Sons. CIRIA (1996). 1993.1. London. Australia. Ballard Biblio-23 Last Planner . Towards a 30% productivity improvement in construction. Project Management Journal. Glenn (1979)..D. Construction Productivity Network Report WR20. Construction Project Management. 1990. (1995). (1993).. Pre-Project Planning Handbook. Clark. Briefing the Team. Cambridge. J. Proceedings of the 1995 Concurrent Engineering Conference. United Kingdom. Thomas Telford. Kim B. MA. Wicked Problems: Naming the Pain in Organizations. R. January 1996. Time for Real Improvement: Learning from Best Practice in Japanese Construction R&D. Gero. CIRIA (1996).fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked. Rethinking Construction. Models in Architecture. Jeffrey and Weil. and Muncey. Construction Productivity Network Report WR21. January 1996.J.. Construction Industry Board. 1993 24(1). Special Publication 39-2. CIDA (1994). CIB (1997).

pp 216-226. Ballard Biblio-24 Last Planner . Crook. American Society of Civil Engineers. Sriram and Eastman. Future Generation Computing Systems. (1988). B. H. 1996. Construction Management and Economics. An Historical Outline of Architectural Science. Rooke. “Design Education Based on an Expressed Statement of the Design Process”. Peter (1995). Economist. (1980). Coyne. February 20. Cross.J. M. Boston. McGeorge. pp 99-120. Pitman. H. 5:63-69. MA. Cowan.J. EPSRC Grant Ref GR/K39417. Dell’Isola. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (1981) “Methods for establishing design budgets and schedules”. Wiley. London. Rosenman. vol. Richard D. 1992. “Quantitative and Qualitative Understanding of Engineering Phenomena”. New York.J. Balachandran. Richard C. Kellner. 35. “Process modeling”. New York. manufacturing. Antony D. Research in Engineering Design. Dobberstein. Rooke. London. 70. Logic models of design. 567 p. Gero (1990).K. John Wiley.. Charles (1994). Handbook of design. (1981). (1977b). (1992). and Kusiak. 139-149... Cowan. Crook. The Masterbuilders. Curtis. and Seymour. and Abulhassan. Knowledge-Based Design Systems. London. Wien. 7(2-3). Institute of Structural Engineers. Cowan. (1997) “Constraint-based collaborative knowledge integration systems for the AEC industry”. Curtis. 1988. 9. Science and Building. pp 491-494. 75-90. U. M. New York. D.Cowan. Deasley. Springer-Verlag.J. John. H. Applied Science. Darryl. Massachusetts. and Seymour. and Walters”. Instn. M. 1999. H. The (1999). John Wiley. Michael A.. Pp 133-144. B. Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction. Addison-Wesley. no. (1977a). J. Nigel (1993). and John S. 1997 (15). 1998. New York. (1997) “Preserving methodological consistency: a reply to Raftery. “Insights from empirical studies of the software design process”. 743-753. 2nd edition. Reading. Proceedings Ingenieurpädagogik ’80. H. The Economist. Dorf. 1042 p. Coyne. Radford. & Over. J. “Control on the Verge of Chaos-Analysis of Dynamic Production Structures”. New York.J. “Science and Design Methodology: A Review”. Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design. H. Bala M. Communications of the ACM. El-Bibany. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. (1977c). Civ. H. David (1996) “Research Techniques in Construction Information Technology” in Turk. Engrs. Richard D. Management of Design: Engineering and Management Perspectives. 317 p. Dasu. editors (1994). “Pragmatic Models of Concurrent Product/Process Development”.. “Innovation in Industry”. Proc. NY. Andrew. and automation. D. Cowan.

100 pp. and Eppinger. Tortora. The Successful Management of Design: A Handbook of Building Design Management. Evans. London. Perceptions of project representatives concerning project success and pre-project planning effort. A. Jr. Gardner.E. M. and Lore. Alan (1991). J. 1998 5(4). Kacczmarowski. Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction.. “The technocratic totalitarianism of construction process improvement: a critical perspective”. 121(3). C. Gibson.. D. S. Ballard Biblio-25 Last Planner . 6. Construction Management and Economics.D. Green. DE-Vol. Corrine and Peshkin. Prinz. (1993). Construction Management and Economics. Zurich. (1991). NY.Eppinger. Finger. John (1994). E.T. ICED ’93. G. Groak. “The Link to the ‘Real World’: Information. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. G... Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design. Gibson. Source Document 105. Longman. “Model-Based Approaches to Managing Concurrent Engineering”. “Design support systems for concurrent engineering: A case study in large power transformer design”. H. Will and Bennett. Jr. “The missing arguments of lean construction”. and Wilson. ASME. Knowledge and Experience for Decision Making”. Galbraith. G. “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. E & FN Spon. Construction Industry Institute. U. 227-233. M.. J. 17(2). E. Fox. (1994). Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. S. 312-318.E. Jr. Colin. Analysis of pre-project planning effort and success variables for capital facility projects. “Concurrent design”. Construction and Architectural Management. 257-283. Design Theory and Methodology. Applied Artificial Intelligence.R. Gray. 1994. Steven D. S. Stuart (1994) “Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for building projects”.. Gibson. University of Texas at Austin.S. and Hamilton.R. S. University of Reading. “A metaphorical analysis of client organizations and the briefing process”.. (1992).L.. 14. Glesne. Steven (1992). “Pre-Project Planning Process for Capital Facilities”. 376-388. The Hauge. (1999)... and R. Springer-Verlag.. F. (1974). David A. (1991). “Implementing Step Change in Supplier Co-Development Capability: The Management Challenge of Design Across the Extended Enterprise”.. “Organization Design: An Information Processing View”. White Plains. Schneider 1998. 133-137. International Conference on Engineering Design. Gebala. Green. S. Construction Industry Institute. 28-36.B. (1995). 49-56. (1994). Green.K. 155-164. 31. (1996). J. Reading.E. Hughes.H. (1996). University of Texas at Austin.E. International Journal of Project Management. Fleig. & Rinderle. Jr. S. Engineering. J. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Finger. Interfaces 4 (1974). Green.R. The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings. IMI Grant (Ref: GR/K 78533). Susan. & Subrahmanian. New York. Source Document 102. (1998).

” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Leroy D. Bentley. (1988). Dordrecht. Harvard Business School Press. The Netherlands. From the American System to Mass Production. NY.. 118. Nov-Dec 1988.. John. Brian W. Engrg. England. 2nd edition. Frank M. "Interaction between sub-cycles: one key to improved methods. (1987). Nov. “Designing with Ethnography: Making Work Visible”.. School of Engineering and the Built Environment.. 8.K. University of Wolverhampton. et al. 2. 54-61. Washington. Hounshell. A guide to successful dissertation study for students of the built environment. Baltimore.A. Communications in the Building Industry. Laufer. (1993b).. Egon G. A. and Peterson. Vol. Wolfgang. J. Managing Architectural Projects: The Project Management Manual. Holt. 133-142. G. Hoefler. Portland. of Constr. Hounshell. and Liker. Paul D. G. Industrial Design Corporation. Ballard Biblio-26 Last Planner .. The Free Press.C. Leroy D. 37-43. G. New York. and Ballard. The Free Press. Hult. J. Reinventing The Factory: Productivity Breakthroughs In Manufacturing Today. The University of Texas at Austin. Gurth and Neil Jessop (1965). and Ballard. Design Deliverables Lists: High –Tech Greenfield Facility. MD. The Built Environment Research Unit. 43(2). and Mar. and Schmidt. and Kaplan. 1800-1932. Haviland. D. Robert S. Hughes. Gary (1998). (1995). “Towards a definition of action research: a note and a bibliography”. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Thomas. David (1984). American Institute of Architects. “Uncertainty and Project Objectives” in Project Appraisal. Howell. Harmon.. Tavistock Publications. Jeffrey K. 1992. “Composite Forms of Organization as a Strategy for Concurrent Engineering Effectiveness." ASCE. Collins. No.. 714-728. Johnson. Prinz. and Ballard. Howell. Laufer. TX. “The Same Old Principles in the New Manufacturing”.. I. and Peterson. (1992). 119(4). David A. London. Report to the Construction Industry Institute.Guba... Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Higgin. London. IDC (1985). New York. Roy L. S. David A. Harmon. Hughes. Guildford. and Mgmt. (1992). Roy L. 17(2). “Systems-Engineering Methodology for Engineering Planning Applications”. April. U. 103 pp. (1990). Kluwer Academic Publishers. and Lennung. (1993a). Howell. Harvard Business Review. Sage Publications. (1993). 241-250. Brian G. Oregon. R. American Society of Civil Engineers. G. Reinventing The Factory II: Managing The World Class Factory. 1990). M. (1984). (1980). Hull.K. The Paradigm Dialog. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. Interacting with Computers 5:239-253. Boston. New York. (editor. H. Relevance Lost: The Rise And Fall Of Management Accounting. (1996). G. A. Kjeld (editors) 1997. Somerville. Journal of Management Studies. U. G. 424 p. Managing Uncertainty in the Piping Function.

Computational Organization Theory. Susman. Andrew. Jeffrey K. (1996). and Fleischer. and Buttfield. and Cristiano. Lock. February. T. McGraw-Hill. New York. Cohen. Fleischer. London. 1951. Allen C. Spring 1992. Funders Report /CP/59. Liker. G.I. How Designers Think. Jeffrey K. editor (1993). and Arnsdorf. London. Ballard Biblio-27 Last Planner . (In Swedish) Juran. G. Michael (1994). Construction Institute for Research and Information Association. N. C. Ward. “Involving Suppliers in Product Development in the United States and Japan: Evidence for Set-Based Concurrent Engineering”. Anne (1998).. “What’s the Story? Text Based Analysis of Engineering Design” in International Conference of Engineering Design (ICED) University of Tampere. Greenwood Press. Westport. (1998). and Kenley. designers and contractors. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Neil. Implementable Research: A Prerequisite for Implementation of Research Results.. Handbook of Engineering Management. Jr. Quality Planning and Analysis. Peter and Deasley. Oxford. Mike. Penny. R. Israel Lawson. British Petroleum Company. Mitchell. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Tampere. “Fulfilling the Promises of CAD”. R.K.J.” in Carley. M. Per-Erik & Hammarlund. David (1992). Janet 1993). The Architectural Press Ltd. Bryan (1980). Self-published.. “The ‘Virtual Design Team’: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team Performance. Pubs.. Liker. London. Butterworth-Heinemann. “Client’s Role in Construction Supply Chain Network Management: A Theoretical Model”. Liker.Josephson. 2nd edition..J. and Gryna. pp 2/371-376. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.. Nass. Jeffrey K. Kolodner.. Sobek II. “Organizational Context Barriers to DFM. Geoff. Peter (1997). 165-178. tools. and techniques.E. Terry (1996) No Business As Usual. Connecticutt. Case-Based Reasoning (. Y. Knott. 589 p.M. Simon. Yngve.. HSMO. U. 1998. (1994). Christiansen. J. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright. Latham.” in Managing Design for Manufacturability. TH425 L3 1994 Engr Laufer. and Jin.P.). U. ed. CA. Concurrent Engineering: automation. (1986). A. Hillsdale. London. Report 49. San Mateo. Sloan Management Review. Constructing the Team. Costs of quality defects in the 90’s.Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Chalmers University of Technology. Levitt. and Prietula. Kurt (1964). Frank M. New York.. Lafford. Finland. Dennis (1993). O’Hana. 74-86.K. 1996. Building Economics and Construction Management. Haifa. 43(2). Joseph.I.C. *Lloyd. K. Mitchell (1992). Kusiak. 346 p. Tulett. Charles. Kerry A.. 125 p. Managing the design process in civil engineering design and build – a guide for clients.. Wiley. Scott. Durward K. (eds. Oxford University Press. John J. Lewin. Kunz. (199Q).

Prentice Hall. Thomas Telford. Charles (1986). (1997) “Communication and governance in the building process”. (1993). P. and Webb. Construction Management and Economics. Raftery. American Society of Civil Engineers. Washington. December. pp 291-297 Moldaschl. “Effective Sizing and Content Definition of Work Packages”.. J. Denis E. Faltings. J. P. Reinertsen. Fischer. (1994). Pietroforte. M. MacPherson. Morris. R. New York. Construction Management and Economics. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. 23-35. Human Relations.. Murphy. Boi V.. Perrow.J.H. Productivity Press. (1997). (1991). (1995) “An economic view of project coordination”. McGraw-Hill. London. American Society of Civil Engineers.R.J. 13 (3). pp 393-400. Raz. New Jersey. London.G. Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design. (Translation not credited. (1983) “Implications for Psychology of the New Philosophy of Science”. Springer-Verlag. 399-413. Culture and Politics of Production”.C. W. Construction Management and Economics... New York.S. J.G. The Management of Projects. R. pp 71-82. and Hough. O’Brien. Morris. Ohno. special issue to the 50th Anniversary of the Tavistock Institute. M. Moldaschl. S.. “Rationality. W. Construction Management and Economics. The Free Press. 475-485. “How designs develop: Insights from case studies in building engineering services”. 17-23. “The ‘Three Waves’ of industrial group work – Historical reflections on current research in group work. 1998. American Psychologist. National Academy Press. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. (1981) “Developing Work Packages for Project Control”. 1981. and Smith. 38. Taiichi (1988). 11. (1997) “Breaking up methodological monopolies: a multiparadigm approach to construction management research”. Ian F. “Constraint-Based Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction”. 358 p. Plossl. Managing the Design Factory. New York. D. Improving Engineering Design. George W.W. Managing in the New World of Manufacturing: How Companies can Improve Operations to Compete Globally. Basic Books. Kelly. (1987). P. Ballard Biblio-28 Last Planner . C. Complex organizations: A Critical Essay. Charles (1984). Englewood Cliffs. and Weber. Clément. and Secord. and Walters. and Jucker..G. Project Management Journal. W. R.Lottaz. Cambridge. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. 3rd edition.) Perrow. John Wiley and Sons. Shlomo (1998). M.W. (1999). 1997 (15). Manicas. p 50-79 National Research Council (1991). UK.” in The use of social science for social reconstruction. Tevi and Globerson. Massachusetts.. Donald (1997). G. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. New York. 15. 1998. D. The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of Project Management. New York. P.T. Claudio. McGeorge.

D. Springer-Verlag. D. London. Ballard Biblio-29 Last Planner . Submitted for publication. D. John. 1998. No. Change. and Rooke. New York. Doubleday. 59-73. Study of Toyota Production System. New York. Journal of Construction Procurement. 1995. Vol. DC. Peter M. “Approaches to Shop Floor Scheduling-A Critical Review”. 26-34. Shingo. pp. “Understanding Shop Floor Control-A Close Look at Reality. “The role of system dynamics in project management”.. U. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practise of the Learning Organization. “Construction Management Research and the Attempt to Build a Social Science”. No 1. Kim (1998). Construction Management and Economics.. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. (1970). The University of Birmingham. International Journal of Project Management. “From Central Planning and Control to Self-Regulation on the Shop Floor”.” Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Seymour. No. and Adams. David. Springer-Verlag. 14. Peter M. H. David 1998. “The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology”. D. (1997) “The role of theory in construction management research: comment”. Vol. 13(4). Runeson. Washington. (1995) “The role of theory in construction management”.E. (1996) “The effectiveness of form quality management systems in achieving the required cover in reinforced concrete”. Stuber. pp 511-523 Seymour. Cambridge. pp 299-302. Senge. Seymour. Tokyo. 1997. Japan Management Association. J. (1995) “The culture of industry and the culture of research”. Shingo. (1995). Construction Management and Economics. Simon. MIT Press. (1983). Seymour. Shigeo (1988).Rodrigues. Rooke. Doubleday Currency. Crook. The Sciences of the Artificial. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Donald A. November/December. J. and Rooke. 1998. New York. L. Seymour. F. Herbert A.K. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. “Guidelines for System Design for Operational Production Management. Shammas-Tomas. 1998. 4. Stuber. D. Springer-Verlag. Alexandre and Bowers. Project Phoenix-Evaluation: First Draft of Final Report. Senge. Construction Management and Economics. Temple Smith. (1994). J. Seymour. “The Organizational Context of Benchmarking and Metrics”.. John (1996). 14(3).” Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. M. (1990). Scherer. Schön. New York. and Rooke. Schön. Springer-Verlag. F. Construction Management and Economics. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production. G. Massachusetts. pp. Massachusetts.. Productivity Press. 213-220. USA. 27. Shigeo (1981). (1998). Donald A. Schüpbach. 6. and Clark. 1998. E. Vol 4. New York. Cambridge.

Sverlinger. 97-9. 3rd edition.” 2nd International Congress on Construction: Productivity in ConstructionInternational Experiences. Helsinki. Chicago. Frederick W. and Betts. Taylor. Tavistock Publications. VA. Jeffrey K.O. American Society of Civil Engineers. (1985 [1911]). Sao Paulo. The Business Roundtable (1997). J.” Technical Report No. Irwin Professional Publishing. Iris D. Dept. Special Summer Issue. (1996). Hive Publishing. C. “An assessment of the scientific merits of action research”. of Environmental and Civil Engineering. Tommelein. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Lean Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem Perdas).E. (??). The Principles of Scientific Management.K. London. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1985.B.*Susman. Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems. The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems. Construction Engineering and Management Program. 43-61. Singapore. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Lean Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem Perdas). editor (1997b). August 25-27. Ward. Ballard Biblio-30 Last Planner . Brazil. Expert Systems for Civil Engineers: Integration Issues. 1999. 20-21 October 1997. (1999). Tookey. Interdependence and Uncertainty. Australia Tommelein. “Coordinating Specialists. 582-603. 23 (December).” Project Management Journal. Allen. Sobek II (1995). Gold Coast. Iris D. Reston. Brazil. “The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster”. “Constructing Site Layouts using Blackboard Reasoning with Layered Knowledge. Glenn (1997b). Glenn (1997a). Liker. P. (1997a) “Discrete-event Simulation of Lean Construction Processes”. Tommelein. November 5-6. U. University of California. CA. Sloan Management Review. 1996. and Ballard. Iris D. 1992. J. “Productivity in Construction-A Survey of Disturbances Affecting Productivity in the Design Phase. Cristiano. John J.. “Look-Ahead Planning: Screening and Pulling. Iris D. Berkeley. Tommelein.” Chapter 10 in Knowledge Representation. Spring 1995. Berkeley. Vollman et al. Construction Engineering and Management Program. and Ballard. Iris D. pp. of Environmental and Civil Engineering.D. Easton. Griffith University. R. Sao Paulo. (1985). Tatum. University of California. 11p. Gerald and Evered. 97-8. “Evaluating Construction Progress. Dept.” Technical Report No. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Construction Cost Effectiveness Task Force. Tommelein. 20-21 October 1997. (1978). 52-57. and Durward K. Tavistock Institute (1966). CA. “Concurrent Engineering Issues in the Aerospace Industry-Lessons to be Learned for Construction?” Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction. Pennsylvania.

for further decision making. so parts have the logic of part to whole. who were selected with theater consultant’s help) and type of structure (steel frame)they could make a model. e. theater consultants). which in turn constrains the (return air plenum). etc. etc. chairs come with different types of upholstery. As it happens. These provide info.g. Consolidated construction drawings. et al. but switched to MS Project when he merged the maps. which is the big issue. Ed Beck assembled some members of the building teams prior to the meeting and mapped their value streams. sourcing. functionalities. -Might use some product development techniques. and erector. § Ballard A-31 Last Planner . which has an impact on (cleaning time and cost: how quickly can they setup for the next show?). Result of having members of the steel supply chain together in the discussion: structural engineer. -The production team and I are starting after ‘schematic design’. look and size and most materials of exterior (by ELS Architects.. hard to read and follow.g. although we might prefer a riser-mounted chair. using block flow diagramming. Lots of negative reaction to the CPM-too small and detailed.APPENDIX A: NEXT STAGE PRODUCTION TEAM KICKOFF MEETING MTG NOTES: MAPPING SESSION. producing drawings. 4/98 -how do they establish need dates and estimate durations? -how decide who should be involved in what discussions? -Case: seat selection (floor-mounted or riser-mounted) is interdependent with (structural pads for seats). NOTES ON NEXT STAGE KICKOFF MTG 5/19-21/98 § Design completed prior to meeting: Size and function of theater (enclosed “amphitheater”. and shop (field erection) drawings into a single set. potentially conflicting properties. 7000 seats-by Auerbach Associates. -Important to include directives in conversion maps? -Discovered in an earlier mapping session with the structural team that could start structural engineering six weeks later and have steel delivered six weeks earlier than initially estimated. This approximates conceptual design and perhaps some elements traditionally included in design development. Points: -components such as chairs may not be offered in all varieties. What happened then? -Design production consists of making calculations. which can change the amount and type of smoke to be removed. which can go either (through the floor or risers). fabrication drawings. –everything’s connected to everything/designing one whole. fabricator. such chairs only come with a certain type of upholstery that would overload current plans for smoke removal. e.

and the design history. The second day started with teams reviewing their process maps for completeness. if feasible. to the concepts and history of lean thinking and to the airplane game. The first half day was devoted to introductions (very effective exercise that got people loosened up and surfaced expectations). MEP/FP. About half the team members had participated in the initial process mapping with Ed. Agreed to start keeping a design decision log (tho’ inexplicit assignment of responsibility and inexplicit process) Decoupled front window and sunscreen. review. rework. Many obstacles were identified and removed in side caucuses-“kill the snake now”. etc. Burning issues were recorded. Substituted PVC membrane for BUR. building enclosure/architectural. One purpose of the meeting was to test the feasibility of completing the project by an 11/15 move-in date and. The other primary purpose was to create a team willing and able to work together. rejection. theatrical/interiors. to create a schedule for doing so. then by extending the milestone schedule through design to the present. submission. and civil/structural. Eliminated one roof elevation. ????? Need to collect these for the record EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS ♦ Selection by qualifications not price ♦ Shared business and design information ♦ Open book accounting Ballard A-32 Last Planner . The second half day was devoted to a brief intro. The first half of the third day (plus some) was spent first reviewing and refining the inputs requested of each team by others. Everyone liked getting decisions made on the spot rather than going through multiple loops of submission. Participants seemed to like it.§ § § § Teams were mgmt/support. Agreed to decide on audio proposal asap. Included cladding attachments in 3D model so can fabricate in shop. Architects and engineers said they liked getting input from fabricators and installers. working backwards from the 11/15 move-in. GO on wind test. PROBLEMS SOLVED/DECISIONS MADE ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Integrated base frame for ‘suspended’ scaffolding into ceiling grid of House. Teams created more detailed internal schedules that fit within the milestone schedule. clarification of the business objectives of NextStages. then transitioned after some confusion into subgroups working on problems and a central group creating a milestonelevel CPM for the construction phase.

The general contractor still will contract with the subcontractors. which seems to have thought of the architect and theater consultant as having the closest relationship to the owner. architect. but that may have been with reference to the end date rather than to the stage of design development. and installer?) WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER § § § Mapping with the teams in advance was probably valuable. Residue of that approach are still present in NextStages. who will (typically) deal directly with suppliers and fabricators. but would have been more so if all team members were present. Explicit commitment to joint production of drawings by engineer. Subcontractors and fabricators have not previously been included in the collaboration. and architect. then have them bring in fabricators and engineers? Should the architect be integrated with the enclosure team. Timing: Many said this should have been done earlier. with the contractor serving as the owner’s watchdog over cost during the design process. fabricators. and installer and sub-group planning of that process. contract documents (construction doc’s). then fabricators and installers. Should it be done earlier in design development? The collaborative process is historically based on the Construction Management/Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM/GMP) approach. contractor.♦ Group planning ♦ Pull planning (backward pass) ♦ Cross functional team including owner. (Joint production of same by engineer. fabricator. with prior specification of design criteria for each) ♦ Production control extended to design as well as construction (future) ♦ Consolidation of drawings: design development. and erectors/installers ♦ Initial attempt to integrate product and process design (needs to be highlighted and done self-consciously. engineers. then engineers. since their concern is with shaping space? Better to have the teams use the same format for mapping so they could be more visible and more easily integrated into a whole? Better to use workmapping graphic terminology than block flow diagramming? Explicit attempt to integrate product and process design. Better to have installers be in the first tier around the table. which was restricted to the owner. § § § § WHAT’S DIFFERENT AT ICE HOUSE? § § Installers in first tier Workmapping Ballard A-33 Last Planner . and shop drawings. with prior specification of design criteria for each. fabricator. Management of the design has not been part of the process.

but also many said that it was just a matter of having costs reimbursable.§ § § Installers (and fabricators?) involved in schematic/conceptual design Explicit identification of criteria for design of product and process Different commercial arrangements? NOTES TO FILE § Design decision log: there was no record of the design brief or basis for making design and planning decisions. productivity. seek hard measurements of improvement in product design. Also how values are identified. Ballard A-34 Last Planner . which seems quite natural and inevitable given that they are both design processes. (What’s the relationship between production planning and design? They are essentially the same kind of processes. or delivery time. but one is of the product and the other of process for designing or building the product. and SDs into a single set of drawings? How measure the impact of integrated. Ditto for translating those values into design criteria. CDs. collect data (PPC. seek hard measurements of improvement. but they forced themselves together. So simple if true. but I believe that form needs to be filled with production management content a la lean thinking.) Need to create new names for the phases of the design/construction process in order to break the grip of the conventional schematic/design development/contract documents/shop drawings model? I strongly suspect that many design decisions are now made with a mind to protecting what the decision maker knows is important. team design of product and process? How measure the impact of production control over the entire design-procure-install process? Need a better process for identifying and developing client values. costs. collect participant evaluations. schedules. How measure the impact of consolidating DDs. Describe process. Keep documents (maps. eg. how they are translated into design criteria. § § § § § § § § § WHAT TO RESEARCH AND WHAT/HOW TO MEASURE? The cross functional team approach to integrated design of product and process. but without understanding what else is important. Everyone seemed released by the prospect of working for the good of the job as a whole. collect participant evaluations. Need a way to publicize decisions that change the product or process design criteriatransparency. actions). Application of shielding to control of design production. both are design processes. reasons. Ed initially resisted mixing design decision making in with scheduling. cost. meeting minutes). and how those criteria are actually applied in the design process. durations.

PREP FOR 7/29/98 TELECONFERENCE. e. -How to identify when one action item depends on another in the same plan period? -Need to clarify purpose of the teleconference? Is it a planning meeting to identify tasks. 9/23/98. do teams or specialists create a detailed schedule for the plan period. -What experiments at Next Stage? -Pull scheduling..g. e. or all three? -Are “dates required” actually that or date it's thought the task will be done? -Consider deferring decisions to accommodate uncertainty. with the management team present throughout.g.APPENDIX B: NEXT STAGE PROJECT TELECONFERENCES Coordination on the Next Stage project was done largely by means of biweekly teleconferences. action item level. 7/28/98 -The big issue was lack of pipe inverts (elevations?) at building drainage collection points. submilestone. or a meeting to status the plan and learn how to plan better? -Need to make the planning system explicit: levels and corresponding processes. The notes below are those of this author made prior to or during the teleconferences of 7/29/98. -Should PPC measure at milestone. or incorporate these assignments in their schedule along with others? -Goal: eliminate plan quality failures.. how do specialists know loads and capacities? -Ditto what planning is done after plan period assignments are accepted. 9/9/98. and 12/16/98. -Need to prioritize action items? NB: difficult to size. in which each design team 'met' in succession throughout one long day. -How much is driven by permitting and approvals? -Making assignments at systems team level-action items. 8/26/98. 10/7/98. Too detailed? -Opaque what planning is done from which assignments are accepted. Then absorb execution failures into planning. pull as work selection criterion -Group scheduling -Organization in system teams -How to control design? -How to plan design? -How to achieve concurrency? -How to develop a supply chain? -How to best use 3D(+) modeling? -How might Last Planner benefit design? Ballard B-35 Last Planner .

of storm drains and above from ME] This was assigned as a group task to the mechanical engineer.01. reducing idle resource time and overproduction. Loading info. better advancing the design project.15.” Failed for lack of info from ME on heat loads.09 “Complete site drainage design criteria” [my comment: need pipe inverts at bldg collection points] -Poor definition of assignment in AA07. Driver is intention to use model to produce fabrication drawings. he/she (or others) can prepare for it: better understand the task. A constraint: difficult to know very far in advance what that logic is because it is developed as each step is taken? Ballard B-36 Last Planner .” Questions that arose in discussion: ‘Does the curtain have a membrane that will require wetting both sides? How to control the deluge system? Possibly applicable code requires heat sensors on stage-not yet provided. some of which do not have identified prerequisites.98.-If the designer knows what work is upcoming. less designer time is spent switching between assignments. so due date was deferred to 8.15. design mgmt can better match capacity to load. -If more assigned tasks are sound (ready). -Perhaps an example of lack of definition: AC07.01. collect information. but need roughout loads up front.” Concerned about tolerances in design and construction. Also.98. 7/29/98 -See AA07. is needed later. -Apparent problem: ‘Committing’ to an action that has predescessors. but output unclear.03 “Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection points and pipe inverts. TELECONFERENCE.08 wasn’t pulled.03 “Schedule for steel fabrication may be too tight. -“value stream had no cushion. perhaps in a chain. etc.15.15.’ -IB07. project manager.07 “Coordinate location of proscenium deluge system with other systems.98.16 “Meet with Lone Star Park to discuss terms and conditions for purchasing their borrow material.” [my comment: need elev. civil engineer. Code not explicit about sensor locations.98. especially regarding the seating platforms. -NB: importance of really understanding the action: -what’s it mean? –what’s prerequisite? –how long to perform once sound? -AB07. Didn’t ask them specifically although they were included under “Action by”. assignments can be more often completed when scheduled.” Need to redo value stream to capture that learning? -Interesting example of the complexity of actions lurking beneath a seemingly simple assignment: AD07. and the plumber due 7/10 and subsequently rescheduled to 7/28. Geometry is needed first—was delayed by changes in seating platforms. Also. Avoid having too many or too few specific skill sets to do the available work. -Completion of 3D model impacted by multiple minor changes.98.02 “Resolve insulation requirements for shell of the building.15.98. make ready: pull prerequisites.12.8.” Marked completed.8. resolve conflicting directives. See also AA07.

-Levels of Schedule Ballard B-37 Last Planner . *Teams “meet” to merge work plans. -What statusing and categorizing can be done by individual players? Is a teleconference the best way to do this? -Why didn’t Jerry ask Gary for the piping inverts? Project Milestone Schedule Team A Player A-2 Player B-1 Team B Sub-Milestone Schedule Player A-1 Work Plan Player B-2 *Each player is responsible for pulling what they need from others? -Perhaps the key virtue in design is rapid replanning rather than plan reliability. *Each team develops a work plan for the next plan period. then finalize team workplan and coordinate by phone-“Can you…?” Should Lookahead Planning Adjusted Should Make Ready Backlog Commitment Planning Will *Does this structure work for design? Are strong commitments possible? *Design tasks are often closely coupled in time.-NB: Important to note when a design criterion is being produced? Also…to track decisions re design criteria? -Make ‘issues’ deliberately include next 1-2 plan periods and use to develop definition of the actions needed? -Are most/many failures from lack of definition? If so. -Clearly the actual planning/replanning rhythmn is faster than biweekly. *Hold this meeting. need a make ready period in which…. -A key is understanding each other’s needs and the value stream. -Biweekly: *Adjust milestone (and submilestone?) schedule *Each team statuses & categorizes the previous plan period. so lots of ‘deliveries’ are needed within the plan period.

Measure. reported to project as indicator of reliability.-loads (structural. & Publicize status vs Milestones Each player develops work plan.. Support Team revises value stream and planning process visible/available to all -Whoever needs something from someone else is responsible for precisely defining the need and should pull it from them. Ballard B-38 Last Planner . etc. energy. Chart. identifies & initiates action on reasons for plan failure - Exec ution All players attend team meeting to complete status and corrective action. visible/available to all. heat. schedules. And to look ahead 1-2 plan periods and refine definition of future actions. dimensions.). 3) collect input info. 7) approve… [activity definition model]. -Many action items result from needs for input info. 2) understand the design task and process. incorporating input from Support Team.♦ Milestone Schedule/Value Stream ♦ Submilestone (work release between teams)-PPC measured ♦ Work Plans (actions by players within teams)-PPC measured for use by player. ♦ Action Item List ♦ Decision List ♦ Issues List ♦ Player schedules Each player statuses their work plans. etc. and to identify/communicate needs and commit to action items. 6) select from alternatives/decide. calculates PPC. -How to confirm pull? Must someone else give you an order or should each player work independently toward the milestones unless he receives an order? Share work plans so others know what you’re doing. -It’s really hard to know the design criteria for specific design products. Fits with problem solving model? -Might help if they had a limited glossary of action types: 1) determine design/decision criteria. 4) generate alternatives 5) evaluate alternatives.

(Ask for what you I need to need. Don’t fully understand what’s being pulled (what’s needed). & criteria. prerequisites. design/decision criteria. -Are all players developing work plans that include both action items and work needed to support value stream unless modified by pulls? Urge them to track Ballard B-39 Last Planner . process & dependencies. needs (& to make lookahead items ready. Record what’s been requested that you define the objectives & can do.) these Team Meetings to communicate meetings. -Definition of action items is a problem. -‘Make ready’-applied to design-starts with understanding the design task. understand them?) Measure & Learn Revise value stream Players develop final work plans & share with other players Status Off Wee ks Revise Value Stream Players develop & share work plans weekly Biweekly Team Meeting Execution Publish Charts & Corrective Actions -Still need to decide who does what design (detailing?)-engineering consultants or speciality contractors? -These don’t all look like commitments to me.- Exec ution Players status work plans & develop preliminary work plans for next period. Email PPC & Reasons to team agenda for coordinator. Should be done prior to work entering the plan period.

(Str. Some concern expressed that the requirement may have good reason. -Seems like good discipline in action item identification etc. If could. Eng.” -Ongoing saga of the fire protection curtain: AD08.98.8. hence a new action item to conform design to this criterion.02 “Clearly identify on the concept drawings the location of each color. then could choose sometimes to expedite.12. AA08.26.” Discovered apparent code requirement for a separate downspout for overflow drain until it turns underground.08 “Contact TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate early review and resolve the filing and approval process. etc.26. if desirable.26. redundant protection of roof from overloading and collapse. TELECONFERENCE 8/26/98 -AA08.98. -Need to update value stream each 2 weeks.98.98.01 “Revise and submit site drainage…” is a follow-on from the earlier added collection points issue. previously misunderstood. horizontal and smooth panels so the cost for custom colors for each type can be assessed. Civil engineer still waiting on roof drains info from mechanical engineer. Project mgmt believes the city will accept an alternative design if well argued. Ballard B-40 Last Planner . hasn’t done 3D model before. -Make system transparent. -Need order mill steel 1 month before breaking ground—decision confirmed. add resources.e.” Sound/power ratings of cooling towers will drive amount of insulation or double sheet rock.10 “Second set of overflow drains connect to main system…. -Would be neat if could easily and quickly see the consequences of choosing week n or week n+1 for completion of an action. Urge them to come to meetings with action items statused & categorized and perhaps with something to share about corrective action.26.02 “Resolving insulation requirements for shell of the building. -When step back and look at the master schedule? -Example of criteria clarification and importance: AA08. -Example of interdependencies: AC07. or smaller?) Str Eng is producing drawings as they build the model. -Not identifying or analyzing reasons.04 Computer memory had to be added to run the model.26. NB: Decision point when ‘negotiating’ directives: ‘fight or flee’. Need to complete model in order to determine member sizes. i.03 “Follow up on proscenium deluge system meeting….” NB: poor definition—“follow up”. Opaque curtain is allowed by code but is not customary.” CE discovered that they wanted minimum travel from handicap parking to front entrance. Learning: important (always?) to understand the basis for the directive.98. -Good example of detailed info needed by one specialist (cladding contractor) from another (architect): AC08.15. and determine quantity of the vertical. Previously assumed less stringent requirement.. Really a life safety issue that belongs in Theatrical. How to best do so? -AB08.98.their own PPC and act on Reasons. in order to do earlier.

and criteria (must have/nice to have) for each discipline and system team. then factor in acoustical criteria and discover a cost of $200K in insulation. -Interim assessment of Last Planner? -Reasons analysis and action-how to? -Record criteria?…in decisions log?/or activity definition ‘explosion’ -redraw design value stream. Try to list design outputs and applicable requirements.. or ‘quality’.. but disagree on what satisfies them. wall type. Or. TELECONFERENCE 9/9/98 -How well do participants think this management process is working? Useful to track PPC and reasons? Any actions taken on reasons? How much time is spent and wasted (respent) re clarity of directives? -Design output(s) parking lot layout Criteria provide handicap w/ min travel to bldg entrance separate downspout from overflow drain Authority city? Advisors Basis Texas Access roof overflow prot.. E. etc. designed to one set of criteria.g. If cost limit is exceeded. civil seems to depend heavily on permitting requirements. but he didn’t realize that.g. incorporating learnings -record pull in action items log so they can expedite and clarify? Ballard B-41 Last Planner .g. Specialists are advocates for specific criteria! -How often do we not fully understand the design decision to be made? E. -Must be discouraging that construction keeps slipping. may have to sacrifice functionality. until it turns underground Pull request Reason needed Requestor Requestee -Critical to find the ‘hard’ points of the design space. capacity.-Waiting on food service consultant added late to team-Creative Industries. -There was a mention that ELS would make their next milestone. drains systems city - ind. How to use the added time? When/how to stop? -NB: Different issues and tools may be useful for different disciplines. select and locate mechanical equipment to suit requirements for loads at least cost. acoustical insulation). Supposed pull was from ME. indicating some attention is being paid to the milestone schedule. -A different kind of problem—agree on criteria. Didn’t expedite getting equipment layout from them. but a specialist designs to a new set (e.

problem definition. Even so. -Deluge curtain saga: Determined applicable code—NFPA (Nat’l. How to ensure not overspending? -NB: teams are driven by specific milestones. process. wiggle room-what can be negotiated. but actual turned out to be=13. -Issue: Bass Performing Arts Center had a target NB=18. Still don’t know if there is an unavoidable code requirement for multiple leaders. Ballard B-42 Last Planner . e.98.. when CE actually received them. What’s driving each team in each phase? Equipment selection must be a big issue for mechanical and electrical. Apparently no pull. a testing lab.98. etc. What hours were spent and what was accomplished? -Considering change in seating. unclear what transformer location is best.01 Continuing saga of site drainage—CE didn’t receive info. mechanical engineer (point sources).09. -Rough categorization of decisions in Decision Log: design itself..26.) 13. we could better manage the design process. Why did we think we could do this in the period? May have assumed local material could be used. relocate equipment. -Confusion re criteria: AD09. which includes ducting.g. needed. or special software.12. How big a deal? Decided to defer 3D model transfer until a decision on seating is made. 2) ways of meeting the real requirements plus desired criteria.98. Also equipment locations. Wasn’t needed in plan period. “complete 3D model” now appears to be the guiding star for the structural team.09. -CE didn’t complete many action items during the plan period. needs definition. Acoustical consultant calculates need for 50 foot masonry wall to provide desired acoustical insulation from mechanical equipment noise. 9 was to make a rec from 3 alt pavement designs. but actually didn’t want it in amplifier room. Alternative is to select quieter equipment. -Need a schedule for completing the design. but city is confident they can allow us ‘what we want’.g. -NB: highly specialized consultants are expert in: 1) the real requirements. Manufacturer waiting on receipt of third of three color samples from paint company. 3) sometimes expertise or technological means for calculating or assessing alternatives. -Example of one period action item requiring prerequisites from another scheduled for same period: AA09. -Metal color samples saga: AC08. EE thought theatrical didn’t want transformer in dimmer room.07. No change to building structure expected. or shield equipment locally.01. space layout). -Handicap parking saga: Must reconfigure. alternatives (wind tunnel tests to determine ‘actual’ wind loads). Fire Protection Ass’n. Calculate from a supposed 11/15 construction start date? -Seems like if we better understand the interdependence of decisions. e.-Team tackle increase in acoustical-related costs: architect (visual.08 and …09. -AA08.98. put more handicap spots in front of bldg. 8 was to get test data on possible borrow material. acoustical consultant (calculates mitigation techniques). Obviously expected to get test results sooner than today.

-Decided to ‘target’ completion of wall/acoustic design (AB09. lack of unplanned meetings (water cooler. -Issue minutes by Friday after Wednesday meetings. energy requirements. Avoid “review”. the architect chose to spend available time to complete glass and stair design package. make planning continuous rather than periodic? -Clear need to issue ‘minutes’ immediately after each meeting. Also. be conservative. Should understand implications of failure. -Not being colocated is a problem.-No review of PPC or reasons within the meeting.0?) although not sure will complete. getting the right people together. -Communication ‘preferences’: some people are not comfortable with multiple channels: phone. E. Ballard B-43 Last Planner . It is bad to not do what’s on the log. -Understand the consequences of failing to complete assignments. -Dangerous to complete design without knowing the users of the facility? -It’s not bad to do more than what’s on the action item log. so can take better risks. ease of communication. -I’m uncomfortable with the idea that these meetings produce assignments. Players not using action item log. Why not allow changes negotiated between ‘suppliers’ and ‘customers’. make ready (soundness). some theatrical consultants produce room documents/books. -Explode master schedule activities as they enter the lookahead window. weight. Personal connections. heat generated. etc.. and sizing? -Revisit the design value stream to make sure we understand the best sequence. empower them to say ‘no’.g. Could have tagged latter as a workable backlog item. “follow up”. corridor).98. email. fax. Use 5 Whys. -Is there a list of equipment with vendor. price. etc. subsystem. Often need additional definition before can apply quality criteria. component? Is the Decisions Log sufficient? Per architects. -Have assignees apply assignment quality criteria. -Have pullers pull. -Identify who/what is pulling each assignment in the lookahead.09. -Be more precise in the statement of assignments. -Learn how long tasks actually take and adjust future estimates. and let slip detailing external wall mockup. Use activity definition model to make sure we understand the scope of activities. -Analyze reasons to actionable causes. TELECONFERENCE 9/23/98 -What can be done to improve sequencing. etc? -Is/Should there be a statement of design criteria for each system. with notice to all? In other words.

-Identify action items that involve clarifying or generating design criteria. Item Desc. When/how do players match load to capacity? Do they check that match before accepting assignments? Each player has work to do that does not appear on the master schedule and may not be pulled externally. time. E. handicap parking: developed a layout before fully understanding the design criteria.. -Design work can reveal more definition of a design activity. balance load and capacity?---One weakness appears to be lack of common understanding of action items at close of meetings. Ballard B-44 Last Planner .-My actions: -Analyze reasons with architect. -Understand how individual planning systems hinge to centralized planning system. Action by Pulled by Revised Date Date Completed Need This Plan Period? -I would like to see how each player identifies and tracks their work and how they use the planning system. -First screen in evaluating/generating alternative designs is—does it meet design criteria? 2nd concern: is one preferable in re nonbinding criteria such as constructability. -Collectively define the task up front. ease of acquiring materials. roofing. etc. Are players able to make good commitments.g. -Type as we go and email instant for review of wording. etc? -Need a category “Not pulled”? -Pull what you need: ‘customer’ processes not consistently expediting what they need from ‘suppliers’. -Develop examples of activity definition models Db25/Fire rating/Etc Inputs Process Flow Diagram or single Activity Int wall design in acoustically sensitive areas Resources -Could do for seat layout. cost. cladding. who leads? -Item No.

Investigation revealed that change to conform to actual criteria may require more fill material.) 1. Est. Does this mean unexpected demands or failure to accurately quantify multiple demands? If the former. Do we understand the design process? Can we identify what needs to be done in what order? Do we understand what’s involved in doing each of these activities? 2. Thought it wasn’t pulled. Includes electrical yard. (This issue just refuses to die!) -Grand Prairie school district has 30. Still need Texas Utilities acceptance of our elec yard layout. we apparently are not very good at estimating the time needed to accomplish specific tasks. Pi of 21 & 25. Sandy clay.Sequence: identify priorities 2 weeks ahead-demands on time and relative priority of demands. Because of external deadlines? Is there an issue of commitment? On the contrary view.000 CY of fill material about 4 miles from our site. -Discussion: Civil has had high PPC. there’s a problem with identifying priorities even 2 weeks ahead of time. Regarding conflicting demands. still lacks storm drain info. Making proposal to city. Suitable for cement stabilization. I suggest we find out: -Are those accepting action items applying quality criteria? -Are players able to accurately match load and capacity? -Are players able to accurately predict ‘deliveries’? Do they expedite deliveries? -Are players able to sequence activities to best meet project objectives? -Analysis of reasons: 89/125 (71%)=40 (prerequisites)+24(insufficient time)+25(conflicting demands). we’re apparently not very good at predicting or causing delivery of needed inputs. Regarding insufficient time. cost of material $1? Our budget is $5 total for select material. Will post minutes thereon this time. cost of handling $5/CY. In any case. Regarding prerequisites. -Added administrative assistant to speed production of minutes. failure of prerequisites within same plan period. Est. CE will copy Fisk Elec and Texas Utilities. Civil -CE confused re pull for first item. (NB: some “prerequisite”-based failures are ripple effects. same problem as with insufficient time. This is not select material. -Target start date now 12/1/98. Asking for proposals. -Easement requested. may need clarification. -For action item 05 we need the mechanical engineer. –Have agreement to tie overflow drains into ceiling verticals.Size: quantify time needed to accomplish tasks TELECONFERENCE 10/7/98 -Blueline/Online coming up.Soundness: predict deliveries. Ballard B-45 Last Planner . but is given target date. If the latter. Added to final plat. but February is most likely. Would be $1 over budget. expedite deliveries 3. Curt asks if it goes through landscaping-obviously the architect has not been involved-requested copy. Civil has to conform his plans for additional drains.

NB: Bruce careful to state his assumptions re the design. Target issue date is the 16th. How well did we identify the ripple effect of this design change?] Structural: -Riser issue: height of riser.May be able to mix with cheaper material from other sources. -3D model on hold for revisions to seating platform. $5/CY for select material. Merrick says 8 feet. -Final plat complete? Yes.] -(11) General Electric Service scope of work—need Fisk Electric. -Down to closing on land and filing for permits. e. have the flavor of demands for commitment—or just plain wishful thinking. attachment method. -Land trade with District-need to happen 10/14./Need return air openings—to be worked out. Merrick.. -4 Week Moving Average PPC=61%. Estimate: $10k for layout. Not ready to select pavement design.g. HaynesWhaley. 5 weeks to price in detail. -Timmel to ask TU what they propose to give us. Sent to Kaminsky’s attorney for review. How to improve? Proposed to analyze in depth a sample of failures from each team. Need to complete before final estimate. -Lone Star borrow material not yet pulled. -55 foot light pole is agreed. -(4) Revised handicapped parking plan and posted 9/25. HW says 20 feet. Bruce: No difference in cost for stud framing (Merrick Brothers) between segmented and curved./Acoustical issues? ELS thinks not. Asked to receive by 9th.: ELS has issued a draft and is collecting comments. Agree will cost <$200K. ELS. Life Safety consultant back next week. -Lone Star easement—Halff has sent note requesting. Irwin. Same type framing? [Watch this one. selecting only from top 3 reasons. -Statusing site value stream -Erosion control plan filed? Yes. -Grading permit. [Is an issue showing interdependence of action items?] -Issues: -Life Safety pkg.[NB: Estimates become controls. Not applied. -No new issues from review of site value stream. Could a team representative perform 5 Whys on 3 failures of each of the 3 types and report to Ballard? -Seating configuration: curve schema GO pending cost estimate by Bruce Perry. Better to form in concrete or steel?/ELS will detail each type of riser mount heights—3 types. material. but will check with consultant. -NB: Robert is clearly pulling duration estimates from his nether region. Often requests for info. but should be automatic when needed.] Ballard B-46 Last Planner . Need to work out framing requirements./Decision: Change platform design.

Price not an issue. Peterson to install all purlins. Bill Cambra. of layers of gyp. then adjust as as inputs are acquired from others. -Wall mockup pkg. from ELS: each c. board in stud wall. of incoming lines? Need to show on floor plan-phone. Steve of CC wants Peterson to install tall house wall-discuss with HW. -Fire pump: What available water pressure? Need a pump? Yes-125hp. [Why not do a computer model?] -Need some concrete under rooftop units on low roofs. -Material for low canopy roof will be visible from lobby. Need different material? MEPF: -How many items of kitchen eqpt. -How many phone outlets will be required? No. [Why has this been so hard/taken so long to resolve?] -ELS to give CC the change point from X to Y at back of house. Locate offsite on adjacent property-Kaminsky’s. to show 3 conditions. on low roof. -Biggest issue to resolve is concessions. Also applies to construction trailers? Can defer grading until last minute? Cost: ELS to provide simplified drawings. telephone.g. etc? Need to meet with phone co. Can use for fire stairs but lobby stairs must be detailed by structural engineer. Finalizing fly tower. [Collecting status info. clarifying current state of design: “Are there any mechanical units on the other side of the building?”] -NB: NC25 not maximum in lobbies and cheap seats. Only possible exception is unit serving dressing room. do we now have? No. data. -Acoustic shielding of mechanical units: when deal with duct noise? When will duct layout be done? 10/12: main duct runs laid out and sized. -Locations/sources of cable. of supply and exhaust fans have increased from 6 to 24. closed circuit TV.-Prefab stairs. but no masonry wall. vertical panels and soffits. -Impact of smoking area on exhaust. To what extent do they proceed on assumptions or pull/wait for what they need?] Skin: -NB: Joel asks each team/person if they need anything they don’t have. Offline discussions to be held on interior wall design.. e. -Metal samples and price are in hand. -[NB: The traditional method seems to be for each discipline to push forward independently. -Structural and foundation permit date will be pushed back by 2 weeks to 11/24. Not sure re no. -[Civil engineer seems to handle all ins and outs from property.] -Update from Haynes-Whaley. Eng: Good meeting with ELS last week. 10’x20’ high. -8400 feet of 2 inch slots in seat framing.] -Requirements for cable TV? Comes into telephone data room. Why? Amy couldn’t say.. [Need to do more process mapping! Harder to do at a distance. Should be served off emergency generator? Fisk to examine. Str. Satellite dish on site? On roof backstage? Ballard B-47 Last Planner . Need input from Jaffe re concrete pads for mechanical eqpt. To handle offline.

The shorter the plan period. -ELS considering board vs stone wall to lower cost. But not much such matl. Could have chosen lights that could be lowered for relamping. rather than betting on the come. Where is gas meter now? Where to bring gas to? -U. Ballard B-48 Last Planner . -Lighting heat loads complete. NB: Functionalities are revealed by technology and component selections. 6-8 week design period. e. -scheduled new item: begin fire protection drawings by 1/15. first floor plans showed gas meter location which now doesn’t work. -Don’t always understand the decision chain.. Becoming the hot item. TELECONFERENCE 12/16/98 -Current categorization of reasons does not reveal actionable causes. Want reproducibles. -Estimating is based on drawing takeoffs. [colocation issue!] -[watch for interdependencies/gnarly issues: kitchen. E. May be more labor than stone. -Electronic transfer hasn’t worked.g. [The issue seems to be what’s needed in order to design the underground plumbing. financing. seating. acoustics] Pricing: -Cost of project has clearly risen.] -Duct designer needs seat redesign backgrounds. the less lead time is available for planning future periods. -The longer the plan period. -Overflow drain issue: now 2 separate systems are required (issue that won’t die!). Would violate City’s architectural review? Considering using inside to replace something else.g. the more difficult it is to defer commitments until receipt of prerequisites. Need for permit. need 10 by 10 area for scissor lift to be used to relamp lights in high lobby ceiling. -Missing water and electricity in parking lot. color selections would seem to be needed late. Also normal loads. plumbing at perimeter: lower priority-work to 5 week schedule. -Has pricing diverted attention from scheduling? -Why is the estimate so important? Amount of $ needed. -Mtg on structural issues at ELS last week got chunks of work done. Focus on distribution system rather than sprinklers.-Before addition of loading dock. -NB: local differences—CHPA didn’t know gas meter size beforehand. Emergency power loads need to be updated-now 230 hp.G. Fix GMPs for each player. but may be needed earlier to match exterior and interior colors. Need to evaluate but add 2 weeks for design change (10/26). but kitchen eqpt not settled. but need definitive estimate. Don’t transmit error free.

Lack of decision 2. Action items that were identified within each teleconference were given a sequence number such as AA07. Structural (AB). etc. Conflicting demands 8. Once completed.98. The date required was specified.01. Priority change 5.01. Project changes 10.. Assignment of action items was made to the various companies participating on the project by use of their initials. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection (AD). and a new required date listed in the column Date Required. BB indicated Structural. a date completed was provided and the rows devoted to the action item were darkened.g. e. Acts of God or the Devil 9. ELS stood for the architectural firm. Lack of prerequisites 3. sequenced in the order Site/Civil (AA). Insufficient time 6. Each teleconference was given a sequence number. and Project Support (AF). Other Action items are grouped by design team. Enclosure/Architectural (AC). Late start 7. a reason number was (usually) indicated in the column labeled RNC.01. indicating the design team (AA indicated Site/Civil. If an action item failed to be completed by the required date. Theatrical/Interiors (AE). beginning with AA07. 1.98. Lack of resources 4. Ballard C-1 Last Planner .) date of the teleconference.APPENDIX C: NEXT STAGE ACTION ITEMS LOG The following log was the primary coordinating device used on the Next Stage project.

15.98.98 07. AA07.98 07.14.15.98.07 Review/Revise value stream diagram.06 Transmit Site Plan package (2 sets) to LCC.17.02 • Identify preliminary and final TAS review process.12.17.20.17.14.14.98 7 07.98 08.02.Linbeck Next Stage Development The Texas Showplace Action Items Log As of December 2.98 07.98.98 TEE/HA/ 7 07.14.10.98 HA 07.98 08.98 07.01 • Provide TAS requirements to ELS AA07.98 07.02 Contact power company for project information.98 Ballard C-2 Last Planner .98. AA07.98 7 07. HA AA07.98 07.04 Develop site and parking lighting compatible TEE/FE/ with Lone Star Race Park for site plan HA submission for Planning and Zoning approval (Control Road "B").15.98 07.20.05 Complete conceptual point grading plan around building.98 07.98 HA TEE HA HA ELS 07.17.01.01.03 Have traffic impact analysis completed.07.98.01.98. AA07.15.98 08.14.98 07.01.98 08.01.01.98 AA07.98 6 07.31.01.98.04 Send copy of traffic plans and traffic impact analysis to Lone Star Park.11.98 07.98 07. AA07. 1998 Project Progress Meeting Date OriginatedItem No.20.98.15. resolve landscape issues (IA07. Revised: 12.05).08 Provide/confirm building electrical load for site utility plan.14. AA07.98.98 HA 07.20.03 Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection CHPA/H points and pipe inverts.98.14.27.98 07.01.09 Provide invert elevation for storm water pipe at loading area.20.14.07.15.14. still lacking inverts.28.98 07. A/ Coordinate profiles with water line LCC/TSP surrounding building to be deeded to City. 2 07.98 07. AA07. H AA07.01 Provide recommendation for Accessibility Specialist to ELS AA07.98 FE 07.20.98 07. AA07. Site/Civil Texas Accessibility Standards: AA07.27.98.01.98.98.98 07.05 Provide color rendering for submission for ELS Planning and Zoning review/approval.98 07.14.12.98 07.98.20.98 08. AA07.12.01.98 Date Completed Item Description Action R Date By N Required C A.98 6 07. HA ELS 07.98.14.

98 07.01.15.98 08.29. AA07.98. AA07.98.12.29.15.27.07 Complete water line/easement design around HA building.98 09.02) 07.01.01).03).98 07.10. AA07.12.09 Complete site drainage design criteria HA 2 AA07.12 Resolve and provide presentation materials to HA City Planning for internal staff review.01).29.24. AA07.12. AA07.15.29.98.26.98.08 Select an Accessibility Specialist HA/ELS AA07. AA07.98 07.15.98 08.98 07.12.24.15. AA07.18.12.12.98.98 07.98 07.03.98 07.27.22.08 Resolve construction start date NS (IA08.98 07.12. AA07.98 Issues Log 08.98 08. Submitted comments.04).24.98 08.27.09 Resolve electric power supply options. AA07.28.29.98.98 07.98 07.98.12.98 07. AA07. AA07.98 07.20.15.06.98 07. M.02).98 08.26.28.27.29. AA07.98 08.27.98 08.98.98 08.03 File original drawings/graphics for Planning & HA Zoning meeting (IA0701. Dickman met C R.27.98 07.98 08. but for Plat Approval (Approved at Planning and Zoning meeting).15.22.12.28.24.AA07. AA07.11 Complete Road "D" plan to support easement HA 2 and operating items negotiations with Lone Star Park (Received conceptual design approval 07.98 08.05).98 07.98 07.98.26.98.31.15 Determine amount of project requirement for HA borrow material.01 Resolve date of City Council hearing.98 08.98 08.98.15.15.12.98.11.15.26.14 Confirm city mailings/posting on-site notice NS/HA announcing zoning revision hearing (IA07.98.98. NS coordinate date with Economic Development assistance package hearing/approval.15.13 Planning Department internal staff briefing NS/HA (IA07.09.98.98 City NS/ELSHA Council hearing AA07.16 Meet with Lone Star Park to discuss terms and NS/LCC conditions for purchasing their borrow material.04 Meet with Grand Prairie building officials to ELS/HA/NS determine multiple permit packages and document requirements (IF07.98 08.05 Planning and Zoning hearing/approval NS/HA (IA07.98.02 Dialog with Lone Star Race Park manager TEE regarding lighting fixtures.98.15.98 08.98.98.24.06.29.98 08. not required for City Council.24.28.15.98.01.07 Obtain Accessibility Specialist list from Texas ELS Dept.98.12.98 Ballard C-3 Last Planner .06 Resolve grading at diagonal wall with ELS 6 landscape architect.98 07. AA07.98 07.24.29.98.10 Complete off-site civil design of City required HA items of work (IA07.98 08.98 08.98.29.24.03.98 08.98 08.98 Issues Log 08.98 09. of Licensing.06 Decision regarding rescheduling 08.98. AA07. TEE/HA/LC permanent and temporary. Cox of Texas Utilities (IA08.98.07).98 08.98. AA07.98.12.98.98).09.

98.98 08.01) AA08.29.05 Contact R.26.98 08.98 08.26.98 08.98 08.26. AA08.11 Prepare revised Site/Civil estimate. (Related item AD08.98 08. Est. Evaluate material.98.98 08. AA08.98 08.26.01. NS AA08.19.02.03 Decision on date for City Council NS meeting/approval.12.26.98.98 09.98 10.29.23. trash containers.98.98 08. AA07.Cox.Texas Utilities about HA coordinating base CAD file. i.98 09.11). AA08.14.98 08.98 08. Sketch within one month by TEE.12. etc.98.12.12.98 09..12.07.98 08.98 08.98.12.98. HA AA08. (IA07.12. loading area.98. HA AA08.12.23.18.09 Review of documents/Final Plat for NS/HA improvement dedication to City.98 Ballard C-4 Last Planner .98.01. HA access route to new commissary prior to planning and zoning hearing.08).26.26.05 Traffic operational plan to be sent to HA. AA08.98 08.02 Update site estimate. AA08.98.15.12. AA08.98.98.12.12 Present revised site plan at Planning & Zoning NS/HA hearing.26.01 Revise and submit site drainage (added CHPA/H 2 collection points) for revised commissary roof A 7 drainage (in Pricing Documents) and sanitary 2 (not changed) Received commissary plan.98.19.12.98.01. 50.03 Revise and submit site plan to reflect HA/ELS/CH commissary.98. Storm drain info to HA by 09.98 09.26.98 09. Prepare related explanatory drawing.07.09.000 yds select material.11 Resolve traffic analysis outstanding items.98.98 08.98.98. Director of planning confirmed that there was no need to revise & resubmit. Needs current site plan.06 Resolve traffic/road design issues with Lone NS/HA Star Park (IA07.98.26.98 for completion by 09.26.98 08.23. Texas Utilties about service NS provisions and Texas Utilities participation.04 Contact R.09/IA07.14.98 10.12.e.98 08.26.21. LS AA08.01.08 Complete district land trade (IA07.98 (IA07. AA08.06 Resolve pavement thickness design prior to the HA City Council hearing.15.98 09.01.26.98. AA08.98.12.98.12.12.98).10).98 08.06).26. 09.98 08.98 Issues Log 08.26.98 (10. scuppers for roof ELS/CHPA drainage.01 Provide LCC with a full set of documents HA HA used to prepare estimate.26.98. AA08.09.03).98.98.98 09.12.98 08.31.10 Rethink overflow drain vs.Cox.07 Complete right-of-way abandonment NS/HA (IA07.98 08. AA08.31.04) AA08. Pull is the GMP.98.01.01.AA07.01).98.04 Design lighting operation/wiring for Road D NS/HA/TEE (IA08. AA08.28.26. and its impact on site .23.12.98.98 08.01. NS/HA AA08.98 08.19.truck PA/NS entry.98 08.98 08.26.12.98.16.26.02 Decision on sign size and location metes and NS/HA/E 1 bounds to support easement documents. 08.10 Advance terms and conditions for purchasing NS/HA borrow material from Lone Star Park (IA07.98 09.12.

98 ELS/CHPA 09. make engineeering determination from 3 alternative pavement designs provided. High PI of borrow material requires inport of select fill.98 CHPA/EL 2 09.09. choose pavement design based on select fill specification. AA09.07 Prepare an exploration plan for borrow material evaluation and comparison. AA09. will result in a net cost savings of $15.12.98 Ballard C-5 Last Planner .98.21. AA09.23.98 11. each with 3-1000 watt fixtures.23.02).23.07.98 Below 09.11 Texas Utilities acceptance of current configuration of electrical yard (AA09.09 Based upon borrow material characteristics.09.98.10 Second set of overflow roof drains connect to main system.26.98.98 2 10.09.98.07.09.21.09.26.98 FE 2 09.23.09.09.98.98 09.98. AA09.03 Define Lighting for site.02 Organize TAS submittal documents for internal and external review (IA07.06 Discuss the overflow roof drain situation with City of Grand Prairie and attempt to negotiate dual system.08 Results of testing program to obtain geotech information on borrow material. AA08.98.09.98 09.98 09.03).98.c.98 TEE FE/LCC 09.98 10.98.98 HA 2 09.98 09. AA09.98.09.01).09.98 09.09.08 Contact TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate early review and resolve the filing and approval process (BFT completerd early review with comments.09.15.98.23. including fixture type and configuration/spacing to match Lone Star Park where feasible (IA08.98 HA 5 09.07.09. AA08. HA ELS 09.98.98.05 Determine the most effective design/cost solution to provide overflow roof drainage.04. AA09.98 10.09.98. AA09.98.04.09.98 5 10. (AD10.07 Revise off-site civil design to delete right turn lane from Beltline Road and add a right turn lane on Lonestar Pkwy where it turns onto Beltline Road.98 09.98.09.98 HA/TEE 09.98 HA 09. at 300 feet o. To be confirmed by Grand Prairie.26.98 Combined 10.98 11.98. Filing can be in 2 or more packages).23. AA09. Drilling to commence 09.09.23.98 ELS HA/ELS HA/ELS/NS/ 09. AA08.98 09.26.98.09 Cost-Benefit analysis both light poles and various schemes.15.09.98.98 09.26. per the City's request.04 Confirm LCC estimate such that utilizing 55 foot poles (13) for the parking lot lighting.23.07.23.09. AA09.09.98 To MEPF S/ LCC 10.98 09.98 HA 09.23.01) AA09.10.98 NS 09.98.01 TAS Accessibility Specialist review to be complete prior to TAS filing (IA07.09.98. AA08.11).23.09.AA08.000 over 40 foot poles (38) with 1-1000 watt fixture.23.10 Obtain comparables on fill material for negotiation with LSP.

98. Revised yard layout sent to TU.98.25.07.07.04.07. determine if side doors will be handicap accessible doors for either egress or ingress.98. FE/TEE 2 2 7 2 09.98 12.13 Determine location of handicap parking relative to main entrance doors.98.11).01 Approval of assistance package by Grand Prairie City Council. Building Official.07.02 Complete paving estimate.03 Confirm depths of 55 foot light pole bases and added cost to finalize decision to use over 38 foot poles.21.98 5 11.03 Resolve requirements of joint use of single utility trench.98 7 12.98 12.98 10.98 10.98 HA FE NS 10.09.07.98.07.02.07.14. AA10.16.98 12.02).98 10. AA10.07.07.12 Upon final design by Texas Utitlities. Should be less than $1/CY (IA10. A. send sketch/metes & bounds to City Comptroller/Sports Facilities Development Corp.04 Relocate handicap parking and revise related site grading.98 To MEPF 10.01).98 10.. TU approved.98 HA 10.23.23.AA09.98 10.01 Follow up borrow material availability and cost from Grand Prairie ISD.98.21.07.98 ELS NS/HA 10.04.98 To MEPF TEE 10.04 Request for Letter from Texas Utilities memorializing service and their agreed upon responsibilities. Info sent to TEE.23.98 09. AA10.14 Complete study and adjustment of civil list of cost increases.98 10.resolve the general electric service/scope of work with TU (loop service w/manual transfer switch).98 11.98 09. pad sizes). and acceptance of current configuration of electrical yard (AA08.98. AA10.98.07.23.98 10.05 Complete revised floor plan background upon which to revise underground/underslab utilities/structure. AA10. to make aware of need.23. AA10.98.98.98.98.23.23.23.26. Cammerata.07.98.98 7 11.21.07.04 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location of on-site pad mouinted equipment (switchgear location.09.02. City of Grand Prairie.02 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon Cherry.07.98 12.23.98.98 NS 10.16.98 12.03 Review and comment on draft Life Safety document prior to initial TAS review submission. AA09. AA09.98.07.98 10.98.98 10.02.98 Ballard C-6 Last Planner .98 10. AA10.98 TEE/FE 10.98 NS/HA CHPA 09.01) AA09.07.98. AA09.09.09.21.07. AA10.98.21. AA10.09. AA09.02 For city requested right hand turn lane from Beltline Road to Lone Star Parkway.98 HA HA/NS/LCC 09. (AD10.98.23.21.11 Upon Texas Utilities final design.29.23.23.01 Prepare documents/Life Safety Issues for initial TAS review submission (IA07. determine/coordinate location of easements.98 09.98 09.98 2 09.04.04.21.98 10.02.21.02.21.23.21. AA09. AA09.98.98 10.98 11.98 HA ELS 10.07.98 10.98 ELS/HA 09.98.

98 07. AA11.02.98 07.98.02).. AA12.98 NS/ELS/CH 12.98 Ballard C-7 Last Planner .01.98.98 10.98.05 Sketch of transformer enclosure louvers to Texas Utilities.98 12. AB07. Final Plat utility signatures to be obtained and recorded.04.98.98.16. Conditions of Contract) (IA11.98 08.16.02. GPISD). look for sand in Kaminsky material.02.98 12.98 HW ELS/HW 1 07.07. to purchase common fill borrow material.26.LSRP (and.98. alternatively. not yet approved by TU AA10.98.02 Revise site sanitary and storm connection points to accomodate changes in the mechanical/plumbing plan ($10.02.98 12.98.09.04.11.98.98.98 12.98 11.98 08.04 Provide elevator shaft dimensions and HW 5 09.16.02.28.05 Decide contracting format for sitework (Gen Cond. AA11.98.09.04.12.98 ELS ELS 07.98.98 07.01.23.01).98. AA12.98 07.98 PA/HA NS/ELS/HA 12.01 Texas Utilities approval of gas meter location.added cost).AA10.21.02.02. AA12.06 Send copy of Engineering Joint Council documents.04.04.01 Complete City land trade. Compete with column sizes.04.02.02.23. run lines internal to the building. Supplmntl. later. AA12.98 HA/TEE/ 5 11.16.13.02 Resolve balcony structural design and sight lines.98 NS/HA NS/HA 7 12.98 HA 2 5 11.98.98 11.98 NS/HA/LCC 12.75/cuyd in place (IA09. ELS 7 11.98 09. requires seating envelope/platform to be resolved. No longer necessary due to approval of AA09.98 12. AB07.03 Revised low roof slopes required by HW for structural design.12.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and down load to SPI (IB08. 30.21.16.02. correct download errors.98.98 12.98. AA10.16.28.98.03 Resolve proposed program changes to add special events power and water to parking lot.01).06 Decide location of Gas Meter. Location decided by CHPA plan. use HA budget for pricing.02. AA12. Half completed.16.02.98 07.01).02.98 HA HA/CHPA 12.28.98 12. AB07. AA12.08 Landscape not yet released by NS.04 Decide early construction program.01 Negotiate with Kaminsky.000 cuyd at $0.02. AA12. complete land transfer with City Comptroller/Sports Facilities Development Corp (IA10.98 12.98 B.04.98.21.98.07 Revise grade change at side of commisary. Structural AB09.01.02.16.98 12.98 ELS 12.01.01 • Provide/fax structural tables for beam sizes/spacing to ELS.98.02.16.98 HA HA HA 12.09.98. AB07.16.04.98. AA12.000 est.98.07 Closing occurred 11.21.02.04.98.

29.24.29.98 A 08.98.98 08.98 ELS/HW 5 07.98 of house.12.98 millrun steel and warehouse steel.98 08.98 07.12.98 AB07.26.98. scaffolding live load.98.11 AB07.13 AB07.14.01.29.01.98 08.24.98 07.98.03 Prepare 90 day structural steel commitment HSC 3 07. and structural loads of lighting projectors at balcony to HW/TEE.98 AA 07.28. Resolve seating platform design.98 TS/AA JHSA AA 07.07.01.98 08.26.09 AB07.01 Resolve concessionaire reprogramming effect NS/ELS/VS 08.98 on back of house low roof.98 09.98.28.98.01. Provide/confirm location.98. AB07. including proscenium deluge system.29. Geometry of loading is critical.14.01.29.05. Provide/confirm location and structural loads of audience/house and proscenium reduction systems to HW.14.98 08.01. i.08 AB07.98.98.98 08.14.05.12.02 Resolve design wind forces/pressures on the HW 5 07.98 AB07.10 AB07.26.03 Decision required to maintain construction NS 08.14.98 08.98 rec'd last week.98 ELS/HW 2 07. Also.12.15.05 AB07.12.12 AB07.07.29.12.98. AB07.12.12.98 HW/ELS 5 07. C 08.98 08. Provide final results of wind tunnel test. AB07.26.98.02 Determine effect of delaying 3D model to HW/HSC/LC 08.98.26. Provide/confirm location and structural loads (confirm) of electrical equipment to HW (greater than 500 lbs).AB07.06 AB07. 08.12.98 07.98 Ballard C-8 Last Planner .e. integrate with the 3D model.01.98 08. Set for 3-D model. geometry. AB07.98 TEE 7 07.29.26.98 08.98 08.98 ELS/HW/ 7 07.98 on project schedule.15.12.26.29.98.98 HW 07.02).12.01.29.98 and expenditure schedule.12.01 Resolve alternative balcony beam sizes and spacing options.29. and structural load.98 07.98.98 07.98 JHSA 07. Provide/confirm location and structural loads of speakers/audio equipment to HW.14.98.98 07.04 Complete new background drawings for back ELS 08. Provide location and structural loads for theatrical rigging system to HW.98 08. Resolve roof loading from hung structural platform. AB07.98 08.98 08.98 AB07. ELS package 08. ELS/CHP 7 07.12.01.01.14 structural loads to HW.12.98 08. electrical load. based on Scheme 'A'. point loads for proscenium reduction system.16. Confirm receipt of CHPA drawings indicating duct and pipe locations and loads.98 08.98.98.15.98 start date and approve structural steel order for mill run steel and fab shop commitment without 3D Model(IB07.15. and acoustical panels.26.07 AB07.05 Provide all input to HW for structural detail of ELS 08.98 07.26.26.07.28.14.12.98.98.98 07.98 building. sight lines refinement based upon revised seat. Provide preliminary chase locations and sizes to HW. elevations. include options for 08. 08.98 fabrication/detailing.

98 09.09.01).98 HW/HSC/SP 09.30.26.98.23.07.02 AB08.01.98.23.98 HSC/LCC 09.12. (IB08.04 Provide preliminary review of 3-D model to HSC/SPI/PB for review of connections and heavy steel members(IB07. to determine detailing input sequence needed by HW & SPI to accommodate fabrication schedule shown in 21 month value stream.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and down load to SPI (IB08.98 I/ PB/LCC HW 5 09.02 platform levels.26. mechanical rooms.98 HS/SPI 09. CHPA to confirm AHUs/configuration to mitigate wall acoustics.23.98.98 09.23. (IB07.98. (Formerly AB08.98.98.98. also.98 LS Ballard C-9 Last Planner .98 10.26.98 09.26.01 AB08. Compete with column sizes.03 Finalize wall design/acoustics for F. Major loads resolved and will be faxed. Provide sliding panel information.23.26.01. AB09.09.06 Coordination meeting upon completion of 3D model to finalize effect of stage and grid on structure.01).98.98.98 09.04.98.23.98.98.98 09.O.98 I/ LCC/PB JHSA/EL 2 09.m. AB09.98 LS/ HW/LCC HW/HSC/SP 09.02 Meeting @ HW on Monday 9/14/98 @ 1:30 p. alternative wall designs. Coordination meetings set for 09.12.98 09. correct download errors.03) (AD08.98.98 09. AB09.09.26. AB09. NS/LCC/EL S/ HW JHSA/AA 2 /ELS JHSA/AA 2 /ELS/ HW AA/ELS/ 2 HW HW 08.23.01 Schedule work session upon completion of 3D model with structural and theatrical consultants to address issues and detailing of stage house and auditorium roof.98 09.98 09.23.23.01.98.02) AB08.98.09.98 10.98 AB08.H.23.26.01 AB08.23.26.98 09.04.98 09.02 Review design/structural implications of alternate interior wall systems requiring acoustical consideration.23.26.05 Review value stream based on mill order steel to determine order lead time. AB09.12. AB08.23.26.12. Review schedule of four weeks for steel fabrication.04 Review HW 3D model data transmission for system compatibility. AB09.98.29.98 09. Verify that box boom alternate locations hit 4000# support points. Provide HW structural loads for box boom alternate locations.07.98 09.09.05) Offline conference regarding utilizing 'Total Station' to do computerized field layout.09.03 Confirm assumptions for proscenium loads.02).09.98 JHSA/AA/E Issues Log 09.98 NS/ELS/HW 09.98.30.26.07.26.98 / HSC/PB/JHS A/ CHPA/TEE/ AA/TSC/SP L/ PA JHSA/HW/E 10.14.06) (IB08.98.98.23.09.AB08.02.98.98.98 10.09.04.98. AB08.98.07 Define/review the structural detailing in a coordination meeting to develop the sequence/schedule to serve the shop drawing/fabrication schedule.23.98 09.98 and 09.07. AB08.98 S/ CHPA 10. ELS ASAP 08.98 09.26.98 09.98 08.15.98 09.

02 Resolve pricing set coordination issues.07.02 Resolve purlin design with regard to interior HW/ELS/CC finishes.21.09.21. and wind girts (locations relative to interior finishes).98 format (IB10.98 11.98.98.98. AB10.04.AB10. IB08. Resolve concept design reviewed with 2 MBSI.01).03 Coordination meeting with CC regarding HW/ELS purlin framing.98 11. HVAC Units moved.21. AB12.98 requirements at "meet and greet" areas at west SA side of building. AB10.98 11.06.02. PB/ LCC 7 10.98 12.02.98.04.03 HW/PB meeting on 12.98 (IC08.98.21.98.16.98 11.04.03.04.98.98. and installation of riser mounted seating /AA/LCC (involve Irwin Seating).98 11.98 12.01 Review prefab stair utilization ELS 12. including curved and slotted BS riser.98 11.07.05 Complete seating platform design to be able to ELS 2 complete 3D Model download by 12. Ballard C-10 Last Planner .98 12.12.04. ELS/HW 12.98 11.09. LCC AB11. AB10.98.04.98.04.98 10.98.04.04 Establish overall general design for seating HW 1 risers.21. fabrication and installation responsibility. Havens currently doing hand take-off for costing.98 12.98 10.04.98) (IB07.02.21. AB12.98 11.98 12.e.98 10.01).21.98 10.02.21. AB10.01 Develop/detail steel platform design for curved ELS/HW/M seating format. AB10. AB10.98 sequences to decide how far to proceed.02 Revise structure to reflect development of the HW/ELS/ 2 fly tower and rigging wall.98.98 11.02.21. Draw section for each typical riser height.02.11.08 Resolve the structural support and acoustical ELS/HW/JH 11. AB10.04.98 11.07.98 11. AB12.98 11.15. top of offices.98.98 11.21.02.98 5 (and ABM by 12.98 11.07.98.98.98 12.04. Provide plan and wall section.98 10. to be able to complete 3D Model.16.04.12.16.98. i.01).98 Irwin Seating.21.98 11. AB10.04.02. AB10.98.98 11. Provide rigging AA wall section.21.07 Review four seating mounting details with ELS 11.98 column locations.04.04.01 Identify allowable deflection for purlins HW supporting interior finishes.98 to review HW/PB 12. wall sections.04.98.98. AB10.98 erection sequence on which ABM's are based.15.04.09 Revisit/update steel detailing value stream HW/HS/SPI/ 11.06 Resolve retaining wall location which has been ELS/HW/ 7 influenced by the seating platform curve.04.98.98 11.02. Specifications allow the use of prefab stairs at specific locations.04.03 Review riser design with regard to platform MBS construction.04 Revise framing to accommodate concrete HW/ELS 5 under roof top units at BOH.18.04.98 AB10. AB10.16.07.01 Revise 3-D Model to reflect curved seating HW 11.98.02.

12.98 09.06.09.12. Scuppers are not an issue. horizontal and smooth panels so the cost for custom colors for each type can be assessed.01.01.98. AC08. (IC07.98 selection (deleting 'and exterior mock ups'). 10.07. Refine energy calculations for CHPA 08.12. stage house.01) CHPA (DC08.09.01 Revise exterior wall mock-up detail.98. and roof drawings will take about ten days after that.98 (IC08.15.12.23.12. (IC07.01 Provide metal samples of color and finish for CC/ELS 5 09.07.98 08.18.03 Resolve material selection at the building base.98.09.09.29.05 Determine if roof valley lines to drain ELS/HW 09.09.07.98.21.02.98.98.98.AB12.98.23.01.98 10.98. Value stream.02 Resolve insulation requirements for shell of ELS/JHSA/ 07.01. AC09.12. ELS/CC 07.98 detailing. and determine quantity of each of the vertical.07.26.98.02 Clearly identify on the concept drawings the ELS/CC 09.07.22.98.98 08.98 cost based on economic order quantities.26. AC09.98 09.21.09.03 Complete roof and wall input concept ELS/CHPA 08. ELS 08.03 Determine metal panel custom colors based on CC/ELS 2 10.07.98 two of three received. AC09.98 AC08. AC09.98 07.15.98 10.16.23.23.98 08.01 Complete louver selection (IC07.98 locations can be accomplished with concrete rather than being built up by PC. Enclosure/Architectural AC07. NS/ELS/HW 12.98.07.26.01 Confirm concrete wall and roof deck at back ELS 10.15.04 Determine metal panel custom colors premium ELS/CC 2 10.98.29.98 of house low area.98 ELS submitted color chips and quantities for each of the colors.98 Ballard C-11 Last Planner .01 ELS issuance of exterior glass and stair ELS 09.02 Determine 'R' value for roof considering both ELS/JHSA/ 08.98.07.25.26.03).15.01). AC09.28. propose ELS 10.98 10. i.98. Sound/Power ratings of cooling towers will drive amount of insulation or dbl sheet rock. AC10. AC09.23.98 AC07.01) AC07.98.98 location of each color.09.98 specific R value for walls and roof (IC07.04 Resolve proposed changes relative to 3D Model.04).26.98.98 design package to CC (IC07.98 Log AC08.07.30.98 the building.29.98.01).17.98 drawings.98 09.98.98 10.98.98.12. ELS/LCC Issues 07.98 up and proposed location at the site 09.98 10.98 thermal insulation and noise.98 10.e.98 08. AC08.02) Wal designs should be complete before roof design begins.26.98 08. AC08.98.09.26.98.01 Prepare life safety narrative outline.01 Evaluate status of input for structural HW 08.98 C.07.02 ELS to detail the desired exterior wall mockELS 4 09.98. AC07.

120 to 150 day building critical path).98 10.30.98 ELS/LCC 7 /PC 6 11.98.98 and electronics storage and shop (158) to CHPA/LC 08.01).98. provide pricing and samples. ELS 10.08. Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will be required.98.98.16.98 requirements to TEE.12.02.98.02.98. AD07.01. erecting.04.09.03 Provide/confirm audio system cooling JHSA 07.98.98 requirements to CHPA.98 11.98. LCC to C provide pricing input. AD07. 2 months to erect mock-up.98.98 12.12.aggregate/paver roofscape.12.98.06.01.14.98 12.07. reduced parapet height. esp.07.04.98 D.02.04.04.98 11.98 Ballard C-12 Last Planner . AD07.98.04.98 AD07.98 12.98 07.98 08. make changes.02 AC10.Vomitory. 07.02 Provide/confirm audio system power JHSA 07.14.98 HW/CC/ELS 11. AD07.02. Provide enclosure mock-up pricing.01.04 Provide/confirm emergency power items to ELS 07.02 AC12.98 12. To be included in Pricing Documents. to be price based. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection AD07.21.02.13.07.21.07 Resolve location of main electrical room (162) ELS/TEE/ 5 07.98.12.98 07. Will not have ratings.01.98 07.21.98 08. Coordinate interior finish support (interior studs and drywall) with high wall metal panel suport girts.01 AC11.98.98 11.98.98 07.04. Resolve number of layers of gypsum board as alternative to CMU to achieve accoustical objective .21.98 lighting and video power loads to TEE/CHPA.98 facilitate piping from cooling tower. Resolve mock-up schedule: 2 months to fabricate panels. Resolve door acoustical ratings. Ordering. Identify roofing material for each roofing section.98 08.01.07. Provide drawing of alternate value engineered BOH metal panels.07.07.01.98 AD07.07.08.08 Provide pipe/duct weights to HW CHPA 07. low canopy roof visible from lobby balcony .03 AC11.01 Post Drawings on FTP site.05 Provide/confirm normal and emergency loads CHPA 7 07.01 AC10. and making decisions based upon the mock-up are critical path tasks (IC09.14.98.08.08.01.98 to TEE.98. CHPA 3 07. and make decision (3 months to fabricate building panels.21.98.98 12.98 ELS/LCC 1 /CC/ NS 12.30.98 12.98 ELSJHSA 2 10. AD07.98 07.06 Provide/confirm architectural/theatrical AA 07.02 AC10. fabricating.08.21.01 site location.03 AC10.98 TEE/CHPA.01. etc.02.98 07.98 LCC/CC 5 11.AC10.98 ELS/JHSA NS 12. Not applicable due to commissary design change.16.06.

AA/JHSA AD07.15.15.04) CHPA/A A/ LCC/ELS AD07.98.14.98 Thtrcl/Int 08.30.26. block out areas TEE/AA served by lighting . AD07.98 07.14 Provide transformer sizes to TEE.01).12.98 07.15.01.22.01.01. NS/JHSA/A A AD07.19 Air zones approval.01.11 Provide elevator electrical loads/data to TEE.14.20.02).98 07.98.98 07.12.12.08.29.) to TEE.12.22.98 07.98 07.98 Ballard C-13 Last Planner .12 Provide life safety [and exit sign loads] (Rolf ELS Jensen Assoc.98 07.22.02 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/EL 2 reviews sheetmetal design.01.98.98.01.13 Provide/confirm location of raceway loads to AA/JHSA 5 HW/TEE/CHPA.98.WSFP/H 2 operation.01. (ID08.01.22.12. WSFP AD07.15.08.98 07.03. MMC/EL S AD07.98.31.98 07.04 Provide lobby lighting loads to ELS.14.98 07. provide CHPA/LL 7 to JHSA for approval.14. block out areas served by NS/CHPA 7 AHU's for review (zones of operation.98 07. AD07.98 Log 07.14. TEE/AA AD07.01.15.12.14. AD07.14.98 08.10 Provide CATV and Data information to TEE.12.98.98 07.29.12.98 08.14.98 Issues 07.01 Confirm subcontractor participation in FE evaluating on-line project management approach. AD07.14.05.15 Provide/confirm general lighting loads to TEE CHPA.98 07.17 Provide fire pump information to TEE.16 Provide emergency power motor sizes to TEE.98 08. W/ CHPA/A A AD07.01.98 07.12. Revise food service loads due to program change. ELS/LCC AD07.15. W/ (ID08. ID07.98 07.28.05 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS requirements for in-house television system.98.29.98 07.98.98 08.98 07.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting .12.09 Provide concession/food service electrical NS/ELS loads to TEE/CHPA. CHPA AD07.98.98 08.98 07.98 08. AD07.08.98.18 Provide concession/food service layout NS/ELS 2 information (Volume Services).02).98.29.98 07. Note: Concession charts were received and show equipment loads and revised floor plan raise the cost from the current estimate.01.06 Lighting operations approval.01.98. zones / for control.98.98 07.14.98 07.02) S/ CHPA/LC 07.98 07.15. Big picture matrix: 3000 SF AD07.98 08.31.98 08.zones of operation/control (IE07.98 07.28.98 Issues Log 08.14.98.98 08. AD07.28.01.98. AD07.98.98.AD07.98 07.07 Coordinate location of proscenium deluge WSFP/H 6 system with other systems.98.08.29.98.02 Resolve sheet metal duct work design. pipe size.98.98.98 07.22. AD07. curtain physical make-up. AD07.98 07.03 Provide feedback/approval of sheet metal JHSA 2 ductwork design to ELS (ID07.98.98 Issues Log 08.98 08.26.98 07.01.12.98.

98.12.23. (ID08.09.98.98 08.98.98 08. Confirm roof drainage overflow design with CHPA 09.26.98 08. AD08.98 A/ 08.98.26.25/98 08.98 CHPA/M 5 08.26. AD07.26.98.98.03 Resolve safety requirements for proscenium deluge system with Rolf Jensen.98. AD08. Drawings to JHSA 09.26.98 HPA/ AA/LCC CHPA/JH 2 Issues Log 08. AD08.12.26.23. Now combines with AD07.29.12.12. 98.98 08.26.12.04.01 AD08.05.98.04 Determine effect of suite smoking areas on mechanical system.98 CHPA 2 09.10. becoming ID08.98 09.09. Prepare summary list of electrical load TEE 08.12.09.29.98.29.29.98 09.98 10.12.29.98 FE/LCC/NS CHPA/ELS 08.12.98 08.06 WSFP/C 2 Issues Log 08.29.05 Reconfigure ductwork at auditorium hard ceiling for JHSA/ELS review. Consider adjusting D/FW design standards due to temperature change condition.98 TEE/ELS/H 08.05 Resolve additional MEPF requirements for adding commissary kitchen.08 Add acoustics value stream into project value stream.98 layouts in complying with acoustic CC/ 09. Determine roof drain pipe routing and resolve CHPA 5 09.12.26.07 AD08.98.98 09.09 Meet onsite with Texas Utilities to permanent and temporary electric service. AD07.26. AD08.04) AD07.98 NS 08.98 CHPA/JHSA Issues Log 08.19.98 Grand Prairie.26.98.98 MC/ 09. AD08.12.04 Resolve supply duct routing from house to mechanical chase/AHU. AD07.12.98 LL/LCC Team to test assumptions for delivery duct CHPA/M 2 08.12.98 08.02 Determine ASHRAE design temperatures. (Related item AA08.98.12.98 08.98 09.98.07 Coordinate ceiling acoustical panels and house air outlets.05.12.29.98 SA/ ELS/LCC CHPA/TEE WSFP/FE/L CC CHPA/TEE ELS/LCC 08. Reworded as: House duct route and outlet locations move to follow new architectural layout.01 Resolve roof drainage design to complete enclosure package.98 AD08.98.09.03 Verify exact locations on marked plan to be designated 'smoking areas'.98.98.09.98 09.98.98 09.12.98 requirements for presentation to Texas Utilities.19.19. NS Ballard C-14 Last Planner .02 08.98.29.C AD07.19.26.98 09.98 08.98 potential pipe and roof drain locations conflicts.98 requirements. Note: Revised duct plans will LL/LCC be available by 4 Sept.06 Resolve additional requirements for addition/revision to suite level toilet rooms.10) AD08.98. Add to floor plan.98.12.98.03) AD07.23.17.98 / ELS/LCC JHSA/LCC Issues Log 08.10.07. (ID08.26.09.98.16.05) AD07.12. (ID08.04 above.98.

98. AD09.98 AD09.09.98.98 10. a ELS unisex single toilet for each grouping of mens and womans toilets.Room: CMU walls may be ELS/JHS 2 needed acoustically.98 09.07. AD09.98 09.09.08 Review acoustical requirements for mech.05 Provide building infrastructure requirements NS/JHSA/A for CATV.09.09.23.09.09.29.98 Meeting (ID07.98.98.98 10.98.98 09.16.98 09. AD09.98.98.09.02 Determine routing/enclosure of exterior duct at CHPA front of house (ID08.23.12.09.98 10. AD09.98 09.07. ID08. curtain physical make-up W/ (AD07.29.09.98.10). AD09.98 09.98 09.09.05 Provide concept equipment layout for food NS/CI 7 service areas.09.23.29.01. MC AD08.98.98 09.23. and Data information to A TEE.07. Identify the spaces within the building.09.26.98.23.may require heavier walls (8" block w/2 layers gypsum) or change in building envelope enlarging mech.06 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/ELS/ reviews sheetmetal design (AD07.09.01 & AD07. ID08.98.26.98 09. AD09.23.23.09.98.98 09. theatrical.98 09.23.23.03 Review implications of two-hour house/lobby ELS/CHPA/ separation vs 21.98 09.98 09.02).26.23.98 09.26.room (formerly AC09.03 Confirm/revise layout of electrical room and TEE electrical yard.04 Obtain sound/power ratings and provide to CHPA/M 2 JHSA.26.09.98.12.98 09.98 09.AD08.07) CHPA/A (ID08.WSFP/H 2 operation.98.30.98 09.09.98 Move to Theatrical 09.01 House duct route and outlet locations move to CHPA/JHSA follow new architectural layout / ELS/LCC (AD07.07).07.07.03 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting .98 10.98. AD09.01 Provide data for small ahu/fan coil unit in CHPA basement mechanical equipment room.09. 09.09.98.98 09.From E/A 09. currently metal A studs/drywall.06) From E/A 09. CHPA/LCC ID08.98. AD09.98.98 09.000 cfm lobby smoke LCC exhaust (selected).98 AD09.98.04.23.23.23.04. 09. life safety and cost.09.98 09. Waiting on Cook Fan ratings.23.98 09.29/30.98.98.98.09.02. central plant A (formerly AC09.98 09. pipe size.04).98 09.07.02).09 Front Mech. Detailed design upon vendor selection.23.02 Provide TEE/FE scope of design as a basis for TEE preconstruction letter agrement and projected cash flow.09.07 Coordinate duct sizing and delivery design CHPA/LL options.12.98 09. AD08.98 10.23.98 10. AD09.98.98 09.23.29.98.98 09.98 10.98.98 09.09.12.98.98. A/LCC/E LS AD08.98 Ballard C-15 Last Planner . AD09.07.04 Provide per Texas barrier-free access. ELS/JHS 5 equipment wall systems.23.09.JHSA sketch to HW.98.23.23.01).06 Determine increased power requirements for NS/CI/TEE food service areas.

98 10.98 11.98 10.07. AD10.98.98. AD10.98 10.98 10.07.07.98 09.98 10.98 10.01). AD10.98 10.98 10.17 Confirm connection of fire pump with respect TEE/FE to main and emergency generator.07.01.98 08.07.98.14.04.26.98.21.98 09.23.98.23.98 10.26.07.07.14.18 Provide layout and size of BOH (rear) duct CHPA/LL 2 runs for acoustical analysis.01. New concept.06 Revise Suite Level toilet room NS/CHPA/E program/design. CHPA 1 AD10. AD10.21.98 09. LS AD10. 10.21.98.98 10.05 & AA09.09.14 Revise roof drain design to reflect roof CHPA changes.98 From S/C 10.04.21.98 09. NS/CII AD10.98 08. Provide location of MMC/LL 2 kitchen supply fans(AD10.02).98 From S/C 10.07.07.21.07.98 11.98.98 09.05 Revise Food Service/Commissary program NS/VS/ELS including upper level food service capabilities (IE07.07.09.21.98 Ballard C-16 Last Planner .98. Identify options/design responsibility/proposal/scope of work.21.07.21.26.98.98 09.09 Confirm that structural engineers have JHS/SP 7 theatrical dimming rack and Audio amplifier rack loads.98 10.98 10.) AD10.98 08.98 10.26.98 08.16 Resolve need for fire pump.23. Holding for concession consultant equipment concept.21.98 09.14.12 Finalize plan layout as a result of adding ELS/NS commissary.98.98 11. Provide sketch/documentation to GP.07.04. 5 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon 7 Cherry. (Scheme B received from ELS during the meeting.07.98 Above 10.04).07.02 Determine the most effective design/cost CHPA 2 solution to provide overflow roof drainage.07.98 11.04.98.11 Define type and size of stage rear doors for ELSl/AA framing input.01) AD10.98. Building Official. AD10. AD10.04.23. AD10.26.07. (ID09.98.98 08.26.98.98 08.98.98 09.07.98 10.98 10.98.05.21.98.98.98 Combined 11.21.98 08.15 Review commissary program and confirm NS food service exhaust duct fans and returns.98 08.07.98 08.10. NextStage to review layouts.07.14.98.01 Determine effect of concession smoking areas CHPA on mechanical systems.13 Provide location of kitchen supply fans.07.09.98 09. AD10.98 08.05).98. AD10. AD10.21.23.98.AD09.23.98 09. AD10.15.98 08.07. WSFP/ELS AD10.21. City of Grand Prairie (AA09.23.04 Provide for 4 to 6 food service exhaust duct CHPA/CI/ 1 fans and returns in lobby area (original ELS 1 program included 2 to 3).23.10 Clarify the conceptual design/layout in the ELS/CI 7 concessions area relative to headroom condition. determine water CHPA/RJA/ pressure required at roof and proscenium.08 Develop commissary utility metering level.03 Provide revised AHU layout at FOH CHPA mechanical rooms.07.23.98 08.04 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS # requirements/formats for in-house live broadcast and closed circuit television system (AD07.09.98.98.98 12.07.05.

98 11.03 AD10.16.98 of open yard flexibility w/o having separations between electrical switch gear.06 AD11.02.size.98.03 AD11.98 weight and layout of new units.21.98 11.98 Cherry. Building Official. TEE 12.02 AD11.21.98 clearance.04.02.98 Issues controls (ID12. 11.28. Provide latest mechanical unit layouts. Base units changed.16.98 10.02.04 AD10. data.04.98.07.02.04. TSPH/CH 5 12.04.16.98 11. etc.01 AD11.98. Reconsider deluge system decision/design ELS/CHP 2 11.16.98 11. CHPA/TEE 12.04.04.98 11.21.07.01).03).19 Provide layout showing telephone. City of Grand Prairie.98 12.01 AD12.AD10.07.02.98.21 Review/confirm normal and emergency power TEE 2 loads. proscenium reduction system functions as a fire curtain.98 12.02 AD10.16.98 12.16.98.98.98 11.16.14. Awaiting return response. A/ WSFP 1 12. CHPA 11.98 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location TEE/FE 5 10.02. Log 12.98.98.98 of on-site pad mounted equipment (switchgear 5 10.04.02.01 10.02).98.98 11.01).98.98 12.98.98.05 AD11.02.07.98 11.02. Provide CATV and data information to TEE (AD07. Schedule requires updating.23.98.29.02.98 including complete underground/underslab 5 12.09. TEE 5 11.98 requirements for cook areas.02.02.20 Meet with telephone company to review the NS/ELS/ 5 project.98.98 AD10. Provide Electrical Specifications.07.04. Outline options for acoustical consideration CHPA/JHSA 12.02. Provide gas meter information .98.02 10.98 12.02. NS to negotiate TEE/ FE 7 costs.04).98 12.04.21.98 based upon Rolf Jensen Associates review. 2 AD10. verify CHPA 11.98 Ballard C-17 Last Planner .98 10. PA Based upon consessionaire design provide gas CHPA 2 12.98.98 12.98 Deluge "A" included in pricing documents.98.98. pad sizes) (AA10.02.01.07.98.02.98.98 Completion of Electrical Pricing Documents.98 (ID10.98 Develop alternate options for TU consideration.10/IE07.02.04.21. Alternate:"B" closely spaced sprinkler heads reacting individually.04 AD11. Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon CHPA 2 12.98 12.01).98.07 AD12.98 duct path (ID10.98 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting CHPA/TEE 12.98 Decision regarding code/security acceptance FE 12. Review/mark-up underseat air slot bands.98 location. AD10.98 12.98 12. cooling tower. and NS 5 CCTV locations to be serviced with empty conduit.04. Control of AHU noise as it travels down the CHPA/JHSA 12.04.98.98 12. AD10.07.98.16.21.04. One line and recepticle/power drawings only submitted.98 electrical construction documents (ID10.21.21.98.04. Coordinate with NS.also.04.05 AD11.04. Resolve generator requirements.04.02.02.04.

98 Issues Log 08. Will be riggged.12.98. 07. AE07.09.09.07.12.21.15. AE07.98 Ballard C-18 Last Planner .04.98.15.01 Send/fax theatrical event proforma to NS AA/JHSA. AE09.98 Issues Log 09. projector to be 30 feet out.98.22.98.09.02.98 09.98. AE07. AE09.12.98 08.98.23.98.98 09. AE07.01.98.98 10.98 09.01). AE09.98.98 07.05 Confirm/resolve size of mid-house control AA/JHSA/N position to ELS.98 08.12.01.07.01 & A/ AD07. SA /SPL AE07.10.98.02.98 07.98 12.07.09.98 08.05 Resolve structurally and operationally whether NS/AA/ELS Box Booms will track or be fixed point loads.12.04).98 09.98 07.23.02 Resolve front lighting and vertical side box AA/PA 5 boom positions (probably 2).04 Resolve alternate designs for mid-house AA/JHSA/N control position.98 07.98.98 08.09.98 08.98. and provide observations/ concerns to NS.09.23.23. AE07. LS (IE08.98.09.01 Resolve house reduction system options NS 2 (AF07.98. Provide loads for both options to HW. AE09.23.23.03) (IE09.98 07.06 Develop alternative audience/house reduction ELS/AA designs based upon new design parameters.98 08.98 07.23.01.07)(ID08.05). L AE07.15.23.01).98 08.12.31.98 12.04) AE09.98 09. curtain physical make-up: W/ Resolve curtain opaque surface. Provide 2-20 foot diameter screens.03. Review metal perforated vs. pipe size.WSFP/H 2 operation.98 09.03 Resolve life safety requirements for ELS/CHP proscenium deluge system (wet fire curtain) with Rolf Jensen (AD07.01) LCC/ELS (IE09.23.98 10.98.12.06 Determine effect of image magnification on AA/ELS walls and ceiling.15.12.98 07.98.98.98 08.98 07.12. CHPA/A (AD07. plastic bottom seats.12. Row of removable seats in S/ ELS front.98.01.98. AE09.02.23.23.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting .98 09.07.98 07.98 08.01.98 09.98.12.07.98 Issues Log 09.98 09.E.98.02 JHSA and SPL to meet to review audio JHSA/SP 7 concepts.01.98.29. NS to meet LCC 6 with ELS to make a decision on seating 1 (IE08.12.29.12.02.01).98.03 Resolve seat selection options.98.03 AA and PAL to review theatrical lighting AA/PAL concepts.98.01.05.23.98 08. Theatrical/Interiors AE07. S AE07.98 11.98 09. Provide loads to HW.26.04 Confirmation of theatrical systems based on AA/PAL/JH event proforma. obtain chair NS/AA/E 5 samples and confirm dimensional envelope.23.29.IE08.02 Obtain chair samples and confirm within AA/JHSA 5 current seating envelope /ELS/ 5 (AE07.28.

23.23.10 Review combination of 3-seat sizes by section ELS/AA 9 to arrive at a final seating plan.07.21.98. Irwin Seating to meet w/NS.05). AE10.21. Irwin to do seat layout/count.98 11. NS/JHSA/A (IE07.07. (IE09.21.21.98 10.21.04.21.98 10.07.09. volume.98 7 10. Confirm both structurals and 3-D model are based on 10' o.AE09.98.98 AA/JHSA ELS/AA 10.02.02) AE10. 7 10.98.07) (ID08.14.23.05 Relocate Electrical room to opposite side of ELS AV Room.98 12/02. 4000# pt.16. including trash compactor location.21.29.23. curtain makeup: Resolve life safety requirements.18.09. AE09. and.98 10. and provided to Creative Ind. (IE09.21.01 Resolve forestage rigging grid issue.98 11.c.lds.98.09.29.15.98 2 10.98.98 10.21.98 10.98 11.01). (IE08.09 Submit Life Safety Program to Grand Prairie (IE08. dimmer racks.07.98.98.21.07.04.07. to be provided as a part of the base building capital investment.07.98 10.07 Provide systems plans for each level including AA/JHSA wiring devices and conduit layout. AE09.in the amplifier/dimmer rooms.98 10.98 12. i.07) (09.98.12.07. 3in pipe size.01/.98 Issues 11.(AD07.98. NS developed description of essential equipment.04.07 Prepare conceptual design for commissary and loading dock area.98.98 10.03) AE10. AE09.98.98 12.98.03 Review proscenium deluge system:operation. ie. identify size of AV Room.07.e.07.04 Forward acoustical testing reports from Irwin Seating to JHSA.08 Video//TV broadcast decision.07.98. ELS AE10.08 The commissary/loading dock changes need to be reflected on the ELS drawings.98 10.04.07.98.(wet fire curtain/curtain opaque surface) with Rolf Jensen. No differential envelope 5 (IE12.04.09.98 7 10. AE10.21.98.98 09.98 10.01) A AE10.12.98 10.09 Resolve use of series of gratings instead of "no ELS/AA 2 fall protection.07.01).29.02.98 10.98.98 Ballard C-19 Last Planner .98 AA/ELS/NS WSFP/HW/ 10.07. disconnects .98 10.12.02.01 & AD07.98 11.02.01)(AD07.98. CI/ELS 09.98 10.98.04.11 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated LCC 5 seat with curved lip.01) AE10.01 Provide layout sketch for other equipment electrical.07.98.03).98 10.98.98.06 Provide revised auditorium backgrounds.04. AE10.02..21.09.98.98.23.21.14.98 11.07.02 Determine the extent of theatrical lighting system that is necessary. AE10.98 12. 3300#.98 11.98 ELS 2 09.98.98 10. etc. adjust aisles and vomitories (Now Fixed).98 Log 12. Review size of amplifyer/dimmer room (AE10.98 ELS TEE 10.98 CHPA/AA/ LCC/ELS AA AE10.07. distribute for verification.07. maximum gross tonnage.07.98.98.98 10.98." AE10.

02 Issue project insurance memorandum for discussion. AF07.21.98. A Review proposed 3 reconfigurations and sizes AA/JHSA 2 11.98 11.98 proscenium. Review/revise audience reduction system NS/ELS/AA 11.21.04.02.04.05 AE11.98 12.98. Documents may not be filed for permits until legal issues are resolved and designers can be identified in the drawing title block (IF10.04.98. Review design program with NS independent ELS/AA/JHS 12.98.98 11.98 AA for review (IE08.98.02.04.21. NS LCC 07.04 AE10. AF07.98.01 Approval of audio and theatrical lighting concepts.11.21.04.16. AE10.98 LCC Issues Log 08. Proscenium: Rock 50 FT.98.07.98.AE10.01.04 AE12. Broadway 32 FT Min.98 07.26.02.98. F.98 NS/ELS 5 07.98 proposal to NS/ELS.98.02.01 AE12.98 producer/ reviewer. for selection of appropriate sized sissor lift.98. Colors and materials for lobby and house NS/ELS 01.01. AF07. Develop actual speaker locations/'look' of the JHSA/SPL 12.98 07. Project Support AF07.07.98 for control booth/ FOH mixing position 12. Peter Wexler.28.98. Resolve constraints Revisit discussion regarding height of grid NS 11.02).98 (IE10.01 AE12.10.98.98 See A Above Send new pit layout/dimensions to JHSA and ELS 10. (Crown Corr agreement issued).01.98. per earlier drawing issue.01). (IF08.98.98 12.07.98 07.21. colors and materials presentation after January 1st.98 11.98.98 beign pulled by logo/ color development.11.02.04 Resolve design agreement legal issues and complete ELS design agreement.16. AF07.03 AE12.98.02 AE12.98 above proscenium.02.98 necessitated by radial seating change.03 AE10. Ongoing.02.21.16.98.05 Approval of audience/house reduction design solution.01). Send picture and dimensions of typical sound JHSA 12.04.02.02 AE10.26.26.07. Effort continuing.98 81Ft-3In by lightening stage house steel and adjustin roof pitch. Requires addding back rigging pit: 6Ft by 60Ft of basement space.98 NS Thtrcl/Int 07.03 Issue subcontractor preconstruction agreements for discussion.29.04.02.98.01.04.02). Send copy of Production Arts Lighting GMP LCC 12.05 ELS/AA/JHS 11.03).01. development meeting next week to generate describing graphics.21.98 Ballard C-20 Last Planner .98 board to ELS.98.01 Review size of amplifyer/dimmer room.21. (IE10.98.98 5 10.07.98 Issues Log 10.07. Raise Stage House trim height from 80 Ft to ELS/HW 12.

98 07.26.98. NS/LCC AF08.28. AF07.09.07. AF08.12.26.98.12. LCC/NS Decision trail. (Timeline preparation moved to Issues Log item IF09.98.98.07.09.98 09.98. AF07.15. Creative NS/LCC Industries.01.) AF08.98 07.98 09.98. AF07.29.01.29. issue and maintain Project Document ELS Log.98.09. AF07. Action Item.AF07.98 08.04).98.12.26.98 07.07.07.09.04 Define format/dates for ELS consultants ELS/LCC Issues Log 08.98. NS/LCC AF08.98 Issues Log 08.98.01 Amend log format to show Issue.09. issue and maintain Issues Log. Effort continuing.98 Issues Log 08.98 08.01.12.15.07 Identify project components not currently LCC/ELS represented by team.03). AF07.05 Review and report on the status of document ELS preparation.98 10.98 10.28.98 07.09.28.12 Develop.98. Project Logs: AF07.98 07.09 • Develop a consistent format for project logs LCC for review.15.14.15.98 07.03 Issue Havens Agreement.13 • Approval of project logs and format.29.98. AF07.04 Submit agreement for architectural services ELS/HA and other consultant design agreements.02).98 09.06).10 • Refine meeting action items.01.98 09. LCC/ELS Effort continuing (IF08. AF07.09.98 09.26.98 07.28.02 Expand current summary project budget to LCC detailed estimate (IF08.09.28.98.26.98 07. NS/LCC AF07.29.98. NS AF07. issue/maintain LCC Action Items Log.06 Revise estimate schedule for GMP.29. each item to have a discrete identity.26.98 07. AF07.98 08. AF07.98 07. AF07.98.98 Ballard C-21 Last Planner . AF07.98.01.98 07.98 07.98. AF07.29.26.98.98 09.02 Probability of construction start date .09.98.02 Prepare list of proposed permit packages and ELS/LCC timeline.29.06 Identify potential national vendor partners. in project progress meetings. Install project documents on LCC communication web site server (IF07.12.29.29.98 07.14.98 07.01 Prepare notes from 8/6/98 meeting with Grand ELS Prairie building officials.98 08.26.98.98.12.04 Include Food Service consultant.98 Deleted 09.98 Issues Log 08.98 08.98 Issues Log 08.98 09.26.15.08 Update and issue current project budget.11 • Develop.98 09.98 08.01. AF08.26.98.15.98 09.98.98.98.98 07.Status NS Report (IF08.05 Resolve agreement with food service NS concessionaire.98 09.98 07.98.98.01 Issue Crown Corr Agreement.98 07.04) AF07.26.09.15.98.01.26.98 07.98 07.12.26.09. NS/LCC AF08.03 Submit agreement for engineering and other NS/HA consultant services (AF07.98 07.01.98.26.09.98 08.10.09.03 Electronic communication of project NC/ELS/ 7 information.98 09.09. AF07.09.15.29. and LCC Decision Log.98 08.98.98. as LCC revised. AF07.09.15.01 Prepare target cash flow estimate for both NS/ELS/LC consultant design and subcontractor design C efforts.02 Issue Pacific Agreement.01.14.12.

23. Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month ELS for ELS and their consultants based on current value stream (AF10.02 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases with Leo3.26.98 10.02.98 AF09.07.02).09.98 Combined 5 10. AF10.01).98 ELS/LCC All NS/LCC 10.21.21.98.26. Resolve design agreement legal issues with NS ELS.98 LCC LCC/NS/ 7 12.98.98.09.07 AF08.01 Prepare permit package timeline (AF08. AF12.98 Issues Log 10.07.16.07.07.98 09.21.98 09. AF11. Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month LCC for LCC and consultants based on current value stream (AF10.26.01).98 ELS/LCC 5 11.09.01).98 09.05. AF09.98.AF08.98.98 12.02.98.5 month construction schedule.98 construction start and18.15.21.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash flows(w/manhours): design cash flows assume 12.98 12.05 AF08.98.98 09.12.98 LCC 7 12.16.98. AF08.02 Continuing improvement in the planning process: improving ability to make quality assignments and ability to meet commitments (IF10. AF10.98.98 . AF11.98.98 JDK End of Action Items Ballard C-22 Last Planner .21.09.98.04.98 09.98.15. No one recognized this as an action item or was a duplicate.04.98 10.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash flows(w/manhours): construction cash flows assume 02. Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month NS for NS and consultants based on current value stream.21.21.07.26.98 To AF 07 09.08 design scope of work.11. IF10.98.23.98.98 5 10. Pam and Mike on Friday 09.06.98 Combined 5 10.14.98 10.09.98.98.09.14.98.26.04.98 10.98.98.02/ IF09.98 NS/ELS/ 1 12.01 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases with Bruce.01. AF09.21.21.98.02 Develop early value stream for remaining critical early preconstruction items of work.98 Below 09.21.07.98 AF09.98 12.14.04 5 09. Issues Log 10.01 Blueline Online: recommendation to not implement until the site is stable.26.01 Review with each team the most effective way to proceed with the development of construction documents and target cash flows (IF07.02.98 construction start (AF08.07.98.11.02.02).98.16. NS/AA/L CC NS/LCC NS 09.21.98 Below 5 09.01 Early construction/other work to achieve visual site impact.98.09. Issue SPL Agreement letter (IF10.98 ELS/ HA ELS 12.98 12.26.02.00 AF08.02.03).23.98 5 09.21.16.01).98 12.09.98.09.98. AF10.06 AF08.98.

Revised: 12. 1998 Project Progress Meeting Date OriginatedItem No.12. if paved. HA/TEE NS HA HA/LCC Action Log 12. AB12.98 B.02.02.26.98 Item Description Action By Target Date A. IA09.02 Legal Action filed against NS.98.02. by local radio station.98. prefix. operating since 1950's. from which they then moved onto the action items log when the timing was appropriate.14.98.04).01 Determine the most effective way to contract for the site work (AA12.01 Review utilization of prefab stairs (IC08. except for the IA. 'sole station'.12.98. re: within 2400 ft.04. then concrete. ELS/LCC Action Log 12. Issues were numbered in the same way as were action items.21. issues requiring action beyond the coming two week period were placed in an issues log. Site/Civil IA08.04 Relocation of on-site pad mounted equipment by Texas Utilities.98.98.98 Ballard D-23 Last Planner .98.APPENDIX D: NEXT STAGE ISSUES LOG During Next Stage teleconferences. IA10.01 Select electrical yard surface material. IB.98.02.02. etc.05). IA11. Structural IB08. fear of our metal building. Linbeck Next Stage Development The Texas ShowPlace Issues Log As Of December 02.09.

to be price based (AC12.98. NS moving on NS/ELS other color decisions based on previously selected building material colors.98 E. IB12.15.99 receipt of permit.01 Resolve material selection at the building base (AC08. for automobile. detailing to start by 02. Ongoing work issue (AD11. ID08. Method of construction issue NS/ELS LCC Ballard D-24 Last Planner .02.IB09.99 IB09.23.23.09. C.98.98.98.26.98. etc.08.99. IB12.98.05.01.98.26.03 Provide for access to lobby by larger equipment.01 Evaluate continuing scaffolding or working up from structural platforms. (AB08.99 start of construction requires NS/LCC/HSC/ SPI steel mill order by 01. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection ID07.98.12.98.29.99.01 Finalize concession design upon selection of concessionaire vendor. NS/LCC JHSA/LCC NS/CI/ELS/ CHPA/TEE NS/LR CHPA/TEE 12.98.03 Review structural connections and heavy steel HSC/SPI/PB members.09. May go up to 6550 plus 256 for suites.01 Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will be required. IC09.27. Enclosure/Architectural IC07. IE10. large boom type lift to access relamping.15.98.02.98. and erection to start on 05.01 Holding an 02.01 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting controls.02 After 3D Model.07. NS/ELS aggregate is more cost effective if wind load is not an issue.01 Mock-up color selection critical.98.15.98.98.10.98.99 for a 02.04.99.98. parking lighting. fabrication to start 03.98. Refer to memo of 08.e. NS/ELS 10Ft X 10FT.04).98 D. Theatrical/Interiors IE08.02.26.01 File application and pay fees for temporary power and telephone four weeks before needed.02.04 & IB07.01 Seating count down from 6900 to 6400.02. i.07).98.01).15. ID08.98. ID10.01 Block diagram equipment layout by Levy Restaurants ID12. ELS/LCC NS/ELS Action Log 12.01) IB09.05 Add acoustics value stream into project value stream.02 Select aggregate/paver material for visible low roof.12.98.29.02.21.04. IB12. Foundation and Structural Permit HW/ELS submisssion target 01. Automated M/P systems can control other timed systems.

IF10. etc.01 Continuing improvement in the planning process. project changes.98.09. Project Support IF07.03 D.98.08).15.03 Probability of construction start date .(AF07.98.29.26.98. IE12. IF10.21. independent of a construction start date.02/IF09.02.21.06).05 Provide video communication equipment price.02 Identify potential national vendor partners.98.02.01. IF08. IF07.02).09.01 Issue subcontractor preconstuction agreements for All discussion.98. 12 months from design to delivery.98.98.15.98.28.02.98.98.02 Irwin Seating critical path.98 Ballard D-25 Last Planner . Documents may not be filed for permits until legal issues are resolved and designers can be identified in the drawing title block (AF07.02 Issue SPL Agreement letter (AF08.98.04 Price Division 16 infrastructure for video and communication.04 Develop site utilization/mobilization plan.01 Resolve design agreement legal issues and complete NS/ELS 11.98. LCC IF07. IF07.04 Define how.Status Report NS (AF07. IF08.98.98. All improving ability to make quality assignments and ability to meet commitments (AF09.29.to be decided by LCC.02 Integrate preconstruction agreement with GMP LCC contract.98 ELS design agreement. NS IF07.26. IE12. IE12.26.01 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated seat with curved lip. IE12.98. IF08.07.09. Effort continuing.26.26.02).01 Resolution of project insurance program. Effort LCC/ELS continuing (AF07.01 Define long term role of food service consultant.15.02 Review/revise Value Stream in relation to schedule LCC revisions. IF08.98. LCC NS NS LCC JHSA F.07. IE12.98.98. and at what point. (AF07. and.98.02.01 Develop post-preconstruction contract documents for LCC review.01. IF09.98.98.98.23.98.11).03 Define a point in the design process where it makes NS/ELS/CHPA/TEE/LC C sense to stop additional work until a definitive construction start date is known. All IF08. cost escalation NS/LCC becomes a consideration.12.02.98. Crown Corr agreement issued.98.03).29.04).02). NS/AA/LCC 12.04 Expand current summary project budget to detailed LCC estimate when 3-D model has been completed.16. No differential envelope (AE10.01.98. IF10.Flannery to layout TV camera positions in the house. IF09.01.98.98.

03 Identify items critical to value stream and follow through. JDK End of Issues ALL NS Ballard D-26 Last Planner . IF12.IF10. Counters and facade to be allowances. LCC to construct shell.21.02. Plans and room finishes to be sent to NS.98.01 Concession architect:Lawrence Berkely Associates. be clear about what should be on the value stream.98.

04. DB for Structural.09.26. etc.15.98 08. Commence geotechnical exploration/drilling of LSP borrow material. Revised: 12. numbered similarly to action items and issues.12.09.12.98 08.02 Retain the services of a TAS Accessibility Specialist.03 DA09.98 07. Site/Civil DA07. unless not feasible or too costly.98.98 :KS NS:RT 07. 1998 Project Progress Meeting Date Originated-Item No. Commissary Scheme A selected (reversal from Scheme B). but with a DA prefix for Site/Civil. NS:RT CHPA:GP HA:JR NS:RT 07.03 DA08.26.29.98.01 DA10. Roadway and building relationships are not affected by the commissary.98 NS:RT ELS:DF HA:JR NS:BC CHPA:GP NS:RT TEE:CS NS:RT 08.98.98 Ballard E-27 Last Planner .02 DA07.15.98.01 DA07.98 09.26. Specify same site and parking lighting fixtures as Lone Star Park.03).98 08.98. Utilize 55 foot light poles in parking area. Barrier Free Texas selected as Accessibility Specialist.29.15. Use existing lighting for Road D.02 DA08.98 DA07.98 DA07.98 Item Description Decision By Decision Date A.98. Roof drain overflow to be piped into primary drainage system.29.98.01 07.APPENDIX E: NEXT STAGE DECISION LOG Next Stage maintained a log of design decisions. Uncertain timetable does not allow taking borrow material from existing sewer contractor.98.98.29.98. If GPISD material is available at the start of construction. Decision Log As Of December 02.98 11.01 DA08.98 10.29. rewired for new/joint operation with Lone Star Park.29.26. Grading permit approval does not require architectural document submission.14.02 DA08.26.07.12.15.04.98.01 NS:RT/ELS 07.07.98. then will make an offer for subgrade material for automobile parking. There will be multiple collection points for storm and sanitary drainage around the building (IA07.98 08.01.12.26.01 DA08.98.98.01 DA11.

98.03 DB08.98 07.01.01 DB12. 07.15.03 / AB08.98 07.06 08.15.12.29.98 09.15.98 07. NS:RT Complete 3D model check.12.03. ELS:KS There will be no electrical point loads in the TEE:CS structure greater than 500 lbs (AB07. CC:SC CHPA:GP JHSA:RL PC:TZ 07. GMP for roof can be provided without having the roof design completed.15.98.15.12.01 DC07.12.02. cross aisles raised to make cantilever KS:ELS work. AA:AS Proceed with structural design based upon NS:RT existing perimeter envelope and seating platform.98. Revise column locations at rear of stage house BC:NS to center the door.23.02 DB08.98.01.B.98 09.12.98 08.01). Acceptable construction tolerance on seating is ELS:KS 1/2" per riser.98. will not utilize warehouse steel.12.98.29. Construction/shop drawings not necessary to provide GMP for exterior wall enclosure.98.98 08.01 10.98 DB08.01 DC07. NS:RT and.98.26. Tapered beams will be utilized to support the HW:JA/ balcony. and.98.98 07.02. Extend four week steel fabrication schedule HSC:JK from 4 weeks to 6 weeks (IB07.01 DB08.98 08.23.98 DB08.05 08.98.15. platform to platform.15.01.12. Enclosure/Architectural DC07.15.07. Initial steel mill order must be made 1 month HSC:JK prior to start of construction.98 12.14).98. Reversed to NS:BC Scheme A.98 Ballard E-28 Last Planner .12. trans-mission of 3-D model until resolution of potential seating layout change.98 08.98.12.98 DB08.01.12. The site has a "quiet area" designation relating to outside area noise.15.98 08.15.98 C.98.98.09. Eliminate CMU walls at FOH mechanical JHSA:RL rooms due to revised AHU layout.12.12.01 Cantilever balcony structure is not practical nor JA:HW feasible.01 DB08. Project will not start construction 09.12. Structural DB07.98.98 08.98.07.98.01 DB10.08 DB09.12. hold-up connection study.98 08.98. Resolved audience reduction and box beam ELS:KS / loads and location. There is not a food service requirement for louvers (IC07.05).98.98 DB07.12.01 DB09.09. Resolved low roof impact on structural design NS:BC by selecting concession scheme 'B'.98.01.98.08).07 DB08.98.26.02 DC07.04 08.12. detailing.12.98.98. Design criteria for building exterior will be HW:RT based upon wind tunnel test results (AB07.

07. This room requires the size shown on sketch current as of 08.98.12.98.29.98.01 DD09.98.29. Roof design by Pacific to follow Crown Corr drawings.12.98 as opposed to a house/lobby rated separation.01 07.01.98. HVAC design is to be per ASHRAE standards.01 DD08.26.98 08.98 08.02 DD08.98 Ballard E-29 Last Planner .23.26. Proceed with concession/commissary MEP design based on current 08. but provide infrastructure MEP.26.09.98. FE:WMcD to participate in evaluating online FE:WMcD project management approach.12. Can specify custom metal panel colors based upon nominal price increase.26.98 07.26.98.12.98 08. Hold on final concession design for contracted NS:RT concessionaire.15.26.12.02 DC10.26.98 08.98 DE07.26. Theatrical/Interiors DE07.98.26.98 DE08.01 DD08.98 08.01 DC08.98.12.29.98.01 / AC08.01 DC08.29.02 08.98.98.98 08.02).98.01 DD07. eliminate NS:RT toilet rooms in suites.98 08.03 DD08. CHPA:GP LCC:BP 08.09.12.12.29.01 NC 25 accepted as design criteria.000 cfm lobby smoke exhaust NS:BC.26.01 TEE:CS to participate in evaluating online TEE:CS project management approach.12.ELS 09.01 DE07. Sound and lighting control house mix position JHSA:DR cannot be moved into rear aisle due to ELS:KS handicapped seating quota. R30 Roof and R20 Wall will be the thermal transmission ratings used.01.98 consultant concept/interim design criteria.124) Proceed with 21. The raceway loads will not affect structural TEE:CS point loading (AD07.98.04 DD08.98 Smoking area includes suites and select NS:BC 09.01.98.26.98 08.98 07.26. Utilize 75 KVA as added electrical load from TEE:CS commissary.29.26.26.03 DD09.98.13). Provide individual climate control in suites.98 08.12.98 concession areas (Rooms 123. Provide expanded commissary kitchen and NS:RT support areas.98 D. HW:RT Location of main electrical room and electronics TEE:CS storage will maintain existing relationship. LCC:MI The back of the house will be a no smoking NS:BC area.98.98.98.26.12.98 PC:TZ NS:RT 08.98. JHSA:CJ Provide suite level public toilet rooms.98.98.98 10.01 Walls to be rated R20 & Roof R30 Insulation (IC07.98.23.02 DD08. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection DD07.98.DC08. CHPA:GP as shown in current Project System Description.07. :KS CHPA:GP E.07.01 DD08.15.26. NS:BC 07.02 DE08.15.

NS:RT NS:RT NS:RT NS:RT 07.98 07. Eliminate the rigging pit due to revised counterweight design.15. Keep the design process progressing toward an 11.98 07.30. all lighting and sound support will be within 60 Feet of stage. Approximately 95% of speakers will be rigged or stacked on stage.98.07.98 10.98.98.23. NS:BC NS:RT NS:RT ELS:KS NS:BC AA:AS NS:BC 09.98.01 DE10. the only reason to hold up progress of the drawings is if it is not efficient for the design to proceed.01.07.98.07.04 DE10.21.07. Change seating configuration to curved format.02 It is not necessary to follow Factory Mutual design criteria. Design process to maintain 21 month value stream production schedule.15.01. Multiple submissions will be made to the City to satisfy the needs of obtaining multiple permit approvals.98 10.02.01 DF07.01 DE12.07.98 DF09. There will not be a front balcony projection position.98.98 10.01 NS:LL 09.15.03 DE10.01 DE10.07.98.98 10. Project Support DF07.07.01. Utilize Video/TV/Broadcast scope prepared by AA/JHSA to define building infrastructure to be provided.98.98 10.01 Box Booms will be rigged.01 DF07.98.98.21.98 construction start.98 NS:BC AA:AS 12.15.02 DE10.23.23.98 07. Provide proscenium deluge system with opaque curtain.98.02.07.98 F. Project progress meetings will utilize "Last Planner" style.DE09.02 DF07.01.23.98 End of Decisions Ballard E-30 Last Planner .98.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful